Editorial Independence in the Latvian News Media: Ownership Interests and Journalistic Compromises

ISSN 2029-865X 80 doi://10.7220/2029-865X.09.05

EDITORIAL INDEPENDENCE IN THE LATVIAN NEWS MEDIA: OWNERSHIP INTERESTS AND JOURNALISTIC COMPROMISES

Anda ROŽUKALNE [email protected] PhD, Head of the Department of Communication Studies Faculty of Communication Riga Stradiņš University Riga, Latvia

ABSTRACT: Editorial independence in the each media organization is influenced both by external factors (sources of information, business partners, advertisers) and by internal factors (business interests and the goals of the media owner and the managers of the outlet). There are at least three levels at which editorial independence can be evaluated in accordance with various players in the media environment – the level of the individual, the media organisation and the media industry. Editorial independence at each of these levels, in turn, depends on self-regulation and media regulation mechanisms. In this specific research, the question about attitude to editorial independence has been analyzed. With the goal to determine the conditions, which affect the level of editorial independence in the media firms, the formal and informal factors in the relationship between owners and editors have been evaluated. The data of the Latvian journalist survey has been compared with data acquired during semi-structured interviews with media owners and chief editors. In Latvia, the will of the owner to use media in his own interest both political and commercial is perceived as natural, as well as the belief of the owner that the opinions made by the editor must not interfere with the owner‘s business venture. However, even in editorial offices where strict limitations of editorial independence exist, journalists find a way to produce content independently. For journalists it doesn‘t mean the situation at the office, but their own individual work, defining the editorial independence as a chance freely produce specific content. Respondents in this survey think highly of the individual autonomy of journalists, but media workers clearly understand the limitations on editorial independence that are implemented by owners, directors or editors-in-chief.

KEYWORDS: editorial independence, self-censorship, media ownership, editors

Editorial independence in the Latvian news media: Ownership interests and journalistic compromises Media Transformations 81

INTRODUCTION

Editorial independence is a definitive prerequisite for media quality. Traditionally, editorial independence has been defined as a separa- tion between decisions that are taken by media owners and those that are taken by editors. In reality, however, the interests of the editorial board and the media outlet’s advertising, marketing and finance de- partments interweave, which means that the existing understanding of editorial independence at each media company is crucial.

This paper is part of a broader study about Latvian media owners (2010–2013), focusing on attitudes which media workers have toward editorial independence. The goal has been to determine the conditions which have affected the level of editorial independence during changing eras in terms of the transition of the media market and journalism, and the formal and informal factors in the relationship between owners and editors have been evaluated. Data from a survey of Latvian journalists has been compared with data acquired via semi-structured interviews with media owners and editors-in-chief.

The level of editorial independence in Latvia represents a compromise between the principle of media social responsibility, as defended by editorial personnel, and the business or political interests of the media owners. From the perspective of owners, media independence is linked to the ability to fulfil the owner’s stated goals by setting boundaries on editorial independence. Editorial staff, in turn, per- ceives independence passively and reactively and as conceivable or inconceivable work conditions. The level of editorial independence between editors and media owners is not defined in the contracts of Latvian media organisations.

In Latvia, the desire of owners to use the media in terms of their political and commercial interests is perceived as natural, as is the belief among owners that opinions presented by editors must not interfere with the owners’ business ventures. Even in editorial offices in which there are strict limitations on editorial independence, however, journalists do find ways of producing content in an independent way. Therefore, this author proposes the concept ofindividual editorial independence to characterise the Latvian media situation. For journalists, this does not refer to the situation at the office; -in 82 Anda ROŽUKALNE

stead it speaks to individual work, with editorial independence being defined as a chance to freely produce specific content.

The editors and journalists of commercially focused media organisations are responsible for the market success of their enterprise, but the level of editorial independence is higher. Owners define market goals, but do not influence content. In this media group, the personality of the editor is essential to ensure editorial independence, because the editor acts as a shield which protects staff from unwanted interference by owners in terms of daily content production.

Data from the study reflect several contradictory media ownership strategies in various industries, making it possible to analyse the level of editorial independence, the patterns of media content production, and the correlations of self-censorship in the Latvian media. DISCUSSING EDITORIAL INDEPENDENCE

Editorial independence is one of the most important principles in media operations, because at the level of the practices of media organisations, it reveals the way in which freedom of the press operates (Himelboim and Limor, 2008) and how pluralism is ensured. Edi- torial independence is also a part of normative views about media operations (McQuail, 2010) in that it is linked to honesty, truth, neu- trality, objectivity and a professional understanding of journalism.

Several other terms have been used to describe editorial independence, including editorial freedom and editorial autonomy. Editorial independence or freedom usually means that editors-in-chief must have full authority over the editorial content of their media unit. De- scriptions of editorial independence usually emphasise the right of the editor to be independent from the owners and top managers of the media organisations, whose decisions cannot have an effect on the selection and choice of media content, the editorial process, or the form of publications. For that reason, appropriate circumstances must be created at media outlets in accordance with the aforementioned principles. Editorial independence or freedom usually refers to the professional work of media professionals, while editorial autonomy refers to the structure of media organisations, in which the development of content at the management level is kept separate from co-operation with advertisers or other business partners, as

Editorial independence in the Latvian news media: Ownership interests and journalistic compromises Media Transformations 83

well as from the company’s financial operations, marketing and other functions, which are essential in medial operations. The term also covers the autonomy of journalists (Scholl and Weischenberg, 1999).

In everyday situations, however, editorial independence is not something unambiguous and stable in terms of editorial operations, because the process of shaping content at media organisations is influenced both by external factors (sources of information, partners, advertisers) and by internal factors (business interests and the goals of the media owner and the managers of the outlet). Editorial independence depends on the business models of the media, as well as on the commercialised media environment of the present way – one in which many decisions are taken on the basis of their advantages and profit potentials. Studies related to the media in Eastern Europe regularly identify violations of editorial independence because of the ability of politicians or political parties to influence media content (Metyková, Waschková and Císarová, 2009).

Editorial independence in present-day media practices can be evaluated on the basis of the extent to which the media outlet, its manager or editor and each journalist can collect, correlate and publish information, viewpoints and interpretations. There are three levels at which editorial independence can be evaluated in accordance with various players in the media environment – the level of the individual, the media organisation and the media industry. Editorial independence at each of these levels, in turn, depends on self-regulation and media regulation mechanisms. Editorial independence is also influenced by the overall status of the media industry, the legal status of journalists, wage and compensation systems, and the operations of media regulators. There is always interaction among legal regulations, self-regulations and private regulations which apply to each specific media organisation. These and other issues are analysed in detail in the European Council’s Mediadem study (Mediadem, 2012), which finds that the greatest threats against editorial independence relate to the liberal and commercialised media system. The study was focused on an analysis of media policies and media freedoms in the European Union, and it concluded that in countries with powerful traditions related to the education of journalists and with strong labour unions there are fewer problems with editorial independence and the autonomy of journalists. 84 Anda ROŽUKALNE

Although editorial independence is an inviolable component of media policy and is of unquestionable importance (Hoey, 2008), the fact is that editorial independence is not absolute in any country or any segment of the media world. Because of this approximate situation, a critical evaluation of the real manifestations of media practices leads to a situation in which the concept of editorial independence is seen as old-fashioned (Grattan, 1998), or as one which is not realistic and is more of a myth (McLellan, 2008), because it sometimes reflects the desire of media professionals to avoid the changes which occur in the media environment.

In a commercial media system, editorial independence is understood as the obligation of the editor not only to ensure free media content and to be responsible for it, but also to satisfy the duties of media directors. This usually relates to specific ratings, the obligation of reaching a specific target audience, and the need to take responsibility for the financial results of the media content as the content is put together. In her blog, Michele McLellan has called for a true evaluation of the everyday nature of the media, writing that it is naïve to think that editors can fail to count on the business strategies of their media companies. An editor cannot act at the national level and spend money for this purpose if the relevant media outlet is focused on the local audience. The editor cannot change the owner’s attempts to develop or not develop content for the Internet audience, and editorial independence does not allow the editor to influence the place on the page where a specific advertisement will be placed alongside a specific article (McLellan, 2008). In other words, editorial independence is not similar to the Sunday-best suit of an editor. It changes and must be defended at all phases of creating media content. Editorial independence is discussed not just by the media, but also by specific publications such as scholarly journals in the field of medicine (Smith, 2006) and other niche publications which link it to intellectual liberty (Hoey, 2008).

As the media system, policies related to media regulations, and the condition of the media business change, there are also alterations in views about editorial independence, interpretations of the concept and the use of the concept in the work of every media professional. Events occurring during the first decade and the early part of the second decade of the 21st century offer good reason to analyse the

Editorial independence in the Latvian news media: Ownership interests and journalistic compromises Media Transformations 85

situation with editorial independence. In many countries, the media industry has experienced an economic recession, finding it necessary to adapt to operations in the Internet environment, to seek out new business models, and to experiment with media content.

Latvia’s media environment lost more than 50% of its advertising investments over the past five years, and those investments are re- turning to the environment very slowly. There have been ownership changes in all media sectors, and there has been an exacerbation during the period of economic difficulties of previously identified problems with media responsibilities (Balčytienė, 2009), their commercial orientation, and the use of hidden advertising in the business models of the media (Rožukalne, 2013). The Latvian media system is currently undergoing increased concentration in the media business. The nature of the work of journalists and editors is changing, and the modern communications environment means that editors have less and less of an opportunity to dictate media content. The job market for journalists is unstable and shrinking. The principle of editorial independence that was enshrined in Latvian law in 2010 is only declarative. Can we hope during this period of change that the situation with editorial independence has remained unchanged? ABOUT THE RESEARCH

The primary goal of this research has been to investigate conditions which, during a period of change in the media market and a process of journalistic transition, affect the level of editorial independence, also evaluating the formal and informal factors which exist in the relationship between owners and editors. The study consists of two parts. First, a questionnaire for journalists and editors came from a set of semi-structured interviews with Latvia’s most influential media owners (Rožukalne, 2013). Secondly, the author has interviewed editors and conducted a survey of journalists on their evaluation of editorial independence.

The survey that was related to various aspects of editorial independence took place in April and May 2013. There were 22 questions about the views of respondents on various aspects of editorial independence in their work and in their media outlet. The discussion focused on the personal experiences of each respondent in defending editorial independence, whether positive or negative, on factors which 86 Anda ROŽUKALNE

endanger editorial independence in Latvia’s media environment, and on the roles of editors and journalists in ensuring editorial independence. The questions applied to all levels of editorial independence – the individual, media organisation and media industry level.

A net-type or serial-type selection method was used to determine the cohort for the survey, the goal being to reach media professionals at all types of media organisations. In the event, the author surveyed 265 representatives of the Latvian media. 25% of them represented regional or local newspapers, 23% came from broadcasting organisations, 21% worked for magazines, 15% were employed by national newspapers, 7% came from Internet news portals, 7% represented more than one media organisation, and 2% hailed from local TV and radio stations. 64% of the respondents were women, and 34% were men. Most of them had extensive experience in media work. This may suggest trust in the profession, as well as stable views about its essence. 28% of the respondents had worked in the media for more than 20 years, 14% had work experience between 16 and 20 years, 29% had worked between 11 and 15 years, 18% had been employed for 6 to 10 years, 8% had worked for 2 to 5 years, and 3% had worked in the field for less than 2 years. AN UNHEALTHY ENVIRONMENT VERSUS PROFESSIONALS

The survey of Latvian journalists shows that professionals from Lat- via’s regional newspapers, news portals and the public media have the highest opinions about their editorial independence. Answers to other questions, however, were full of contradictions. Media people believe that their professionalism can protect editorial independence, but they also admit there are media outlets which have been established on the basis of political interests, as well as that a dependence on commercial interests is a fundamental problem. Analysis of Latvian media content in the context of the goals of media owners shows that very few media organisations find social responsibility principles to be of importance, because in most cases the media have been established and managed in order to earn a profit. The views of journalists differ in the sense that they accept the influence of political and business factors, but they also believe these factors cannot have any major influence on the everyday work of each media professional.

Editorial independence in the Latvian news media: Ownership interests and journalistic compromises Media Transformations 87

There were only two questions in the survey, related to problems with editorial independence, with respect to which journalists, editors and producers in Latvia all had the same opinion – the essence of editorial independence and the role of editors in ensuring it. The former question related to the definition that editorial independence meant an opportunity to take independent decisions about content, sources of information, and other professional materials. 96% of respondents fully or partly agreed with the statement.

Latvia’s media environment is very heterogeneous. There are media outlets which belong to journalists themselves and, therefore, enjoy a higher level of editorial independence, as well as media outlets at which the work of journalists depends on the business or political interests of the relevant owners. Only 4% of respondents disagreed with the aforementioned definition, and even fewer (3%) wished to amend it (see Figure1). This suggests that varieties in working conditions, experiences, jobs and statuses, education and the issue of whether one works for a local or international media company do not mean there are different interpretations of editorial independence.

Figure 1. The definition of editorial independence.

The best idea about factors which influence editorial independence is provided by answers to questions as to whether media professionals agree that the quality of their work depends on the political ambi- 88 Anda ROŽUKALNE

tions and profit interests of media owners. The statement was this: “I believe that editorial independence can be limited by the interests of advertisers or other business partners”. 21% of respondents agreed with the statement (9% fully agreed with it, while 12% partly agreed with it). 27% partly disagreed with it, and 49% fully disagreed with the statement (see Figure 2). This clearly proves something that has been noted in other Eastern European countries –the work of journalists is dangerously close to the model of relations between a service provider and a client – a model which journalists must respect and uphold with the aim of ensuring the relevant media organisation’s commercial interests (Roudakova, 2008).

Figure 2. An evaluation of the impact of business interests on editorial independence.

There are different answers when it comes to political influence on the everyday work of media outlets. The statement was this: “I believe that editorial independence can be limited by the political interests and ties of the media owner”, with 28% agreeing, 15% partly disagreeing, and 55% fully disagreeing (see Figure 3). This may show that journalists partly accept the influence of politicians on the media, particularly if the economic survival of the relevant media outlet is not possible without such involvement. The level of political parallelism in the Latvian media world is dictated by several media organisations which were established with the express purpose of representing the political interests of their owners. Articles in such media outlets combine influenced and freely prepared content. These journalists must adapt to political influence and also try to work in accordance with the relevant political principles.

Editorial independence in the Latvian news media: Ownership interests and journalistic compromises Media Transformations 89

Answers to questions about limitations on editorial independence coincide with results which speak to the professional everyday work of respondents. 76% of respondents claimed that they did not face any regular limitations on editorial independence – ones which could re- duce the quality of journalism. It is not a bad thing if three-quarters of media professionals believe they work freely and are independent in making decisions but sadly, 11% of respondents say their everyday work involves a violation of professional principles (the other 14% of respondents could not answer the relevant question or offered different interests) (see Figure 4). Some of the respondents said, moreover, that although limitations on editorial independence do not occur regularly, “they do happen occasionally”.

Figure 3. An evaluation of the impact of political interests on editorial independence.

Figure 4. An evaluation of restrictions on editorial independence (1).

There are contradictions in answers which respondents gave to other questions. Freedom in deciding on content is not a natural element 90 Anda ROŽUKALNE

in the everyday lives of journalists, with 54% of respondents fully or partly agreeing with the statement “everyone at our editorial office clearly knows the topics, information sources, views and positions which can be reflected freely, as well as those which should be avoid- ed” (see Figure 5).

The author posed this question to find out how common is the prac- tice which some journalists have mentioned in interviews – that the interests of media directors are implemented by cultivating specific information or, alternatively, by banning the use of certain sources of information and topics. Answers to this question also coincide with something which a few media owners have said about their status as “media bosses”: If necessary, they instruct their employees to support a specific viewpoint, to focus attention on a subject, or to avoid a subject. The instructions which relate to “desirable and undesirable” sources or topics are usually implemented by editors.

Figure 5. An evaluation of restrictions on editorial independence (2).

Editorial independence is linked to the autonomy of journalists, but 38% of respondents fully or partly agreed with this statement: “I understand that because of the interests of media owners or managers, part of my work is self-censorship”. 40% disagreed and 16% partly disagreed with the statement (see Figure 6).

In answering a question about self-censorship, one respondent said that the taking of free decisions is not always limited by political or commercial interests. Instead, the selection of sources or topics is

Editorial independence in the Latvian news media: Ownership interests and journalistic compromises Media Transformations 91

influenced by editors; their experience, their taste, their beliefs and their social contacts. Journalists also find that to be a limitation on their professional autonomy. Respondents in the survey argued that editors are of particular importance, with journalists believing that the editor is fully responsible for editorial independence and must ensure it.

Figure 6. An evaluation of self-censorship.

THE EDITOR AS A “SHIELD”

A second issue with respect to which Latvian media professionals are prepared to agree is the role of the editor in ensuring editorial independence, with 93% of survey respondents agreeing that the editor must be a “shield” between the editorial office and the media owners or managers so as to protect editorial independence. This view reflects a situation in which journalists are prepared to delegate greater responsibility to their editors. This, in turn, shows the great role of the editor’s personality, ability to have a strong backbone, and the ability to ensure the respect both of employees and media managers.

Professional self-confidence is also see in another answer – 31% of respondents said all of the staff of the editorial office work together to ensure editorial independence, 22% argued that it depends on the professional position of the respondent as such, and another 22% plumped for the principles of the editor in this regard (see Figure 7). 92 Anda ROŽUKALNE

There is a flip side of the coin, however, when it comes to the important status of editors. It could be said that “god” and the “devil” are one and the same, because in other questions respondents insisted that editorial independence can be limited by the views of the editor about the mission of the media (13%) or the understanding which the editor has when it comes to the interests of the media outlet’s audience (19%) (see Figure 8). This shows that editors have a typically authoritarian management style. If the editor believes a specific topic will not attract the attention of the audience, then the recommen- dation for the journalist is to avoid it altogether. When it comes to ensuring editorial independence inside media organisations, however, also of great importance is the professional position of journalists. Media professionals believe the principle of editorial independence is linked to the quality of their work.

Figure 7. Driving forces behind editorial independence.

Journalists also understand that the commercial interests of media companies are essential. They believe that editorial independence is also determined by the business interests of media owners (13%) and the influence of major advertisers (11%) (see Figure 8). These answers coincide with the findings of other studies – that members of the audience cannot influence media content.

The formal level of editorial independence is also revealed by answers to the question of whether journalists discuss autonomy and freedom when they accept new jobs. The statement was this: “Upon beginning work in the media, I agreed to the existing level of editori-

Editorial independence in the Latvian news media: Ownership interests and journalistic compromises Media Transformations 93

al independence”, with 32% agreeing, 45% disagreeing, 11% not being able to answer the question, and 12% offering a different answer (see Figure 9). This shows that editorial independence is often seen as something that goes without saying, and there are no discussions about it unless there is a serious reason to do so. “These are intuitive issues”, said one respondent. “I think that my employer understands my level of thinking and does not find it necessary to constantly re- peat information about where my limitations on freedom end”. An- other respondent’s replies, however, indicated that discussions about editorial independence are necessary at editorial offices. “I thought that [editorial independence] goes without saying and that no agreement was necessary, but the truth turned out to be much worse”, she wrote. Another respondent felt the issue is not unambiguous: “I have no sense of how that could lead to an agreement, nor with whom such an agreement could be struck”. These answers confirm respondents generally have a clear sense of the principle of editorial independence, but editorial offices have not established management instruments to ensure it. This suggests that editorial independence, like norms of professional ethics, is perceived in a situational manner (Rožukalne and Olšteina, 2012). Figure 8. Limits on editorial independence. 94 Anda ROŽUKALNE

Figure 9. Discussions about editorial independence.

Of fundamental importance in the survey is the discovery that editorial independence, in most cases, is not a part of the job’s contract. Only 27% of respondents said their contract included an agreement on editorial independence, while a few more – 32% – said they agreed on the principle of editorial independence when starting their new job. The rest (41–45%) either did not discuss these issues with their employer or did not have the principle enshrined in the contact (see Figure 10). This indicates that media organisations in Latvia are un- concerned about the regulation of this principle therein.

Figure 10. Agreements on editorial independence.

Editorial independence in the Latvian news media: Ownership interests and journalistic compromises Media Transformations 95

Answers to questions about the desirable and actual regulations related to editorial independence show that journalists have equal thoughts about the essence thereof, but also that editorial independence is not a natural value in their everyday lives. THE VICTORY OF INDIVIDUAL EDITORIAL INDEPENDENCE

The most contradictory responses were given to questions about the evaluation of editorial independence in each respondent’s media organisation, as compared to other media outlets. 68% of respondents argued that there is a high level of editorial independence in “my media outlet”, because “I can freely fulfil my professional goals” (25% said that the level is average, while 4% said that it is low) (see Figure 11).

Figure 11. An evaluation of editorial independence at “my media outlet”.

A question about editorial independence at other media organisations leads to bemusing answers. 68% of journalists felt that the level of editorial independence is comfortable at their media outlet, but an equal number – 68% once again – said that “the level of editorial independence at other media organisations with which I am familiar is average, because sometimes colleagues have to compromise between the interests of the editorial board and those which come from outside” (13% said that the level is high, while 16% argued that it is low), because “journalists are not able to work in accordance with professional principles” (see Figure 12). 96 Anda ROŽUKALNE

On the one hand, this might suggest that most respondents represent “comfortable” media organisations such as the public media of Latvia, but they have had bad experiences or know colleagues whose working conditions are not as acceptable. This may be true, because some respondents asked the author to send questions to private E-mail addresses, insisting they did not want to receive them at work. On the other hand, the answers also confirm that which was stated at the beginning of this paper – that approximately one-quarter of media professionals in Latvia encounter limitations on editorial independence. 33% of respondents, in turn, fully or partly agree that they feel fairly comfortable, while colleagues at their own media outlet are forced to follow the orders of advertisers or the “political partners” of the owners.

Figure 12. An evaluation of the editorial independence at the “other media”.

This question retested thoughts that had been expressed in earlier interviews with journalists and editors – that most of the journalists at media outlets which face political and commercial influences work independently, while a few colleagues regularly follow “instructions” which come from outside the media organisation. This relates to ser- vicing the interests of owners, as well as the duty to prepare hidden advertising – paid news, interview and reports. For that reason, the level of editorial independence in Latvia is easiest to evaluate at the individual level, as opposed to the level of editorial boards or media outlets. Journalists who say that the level of editorial independence at

Editorial independence in the Latvian news media: Ownership interests and journalistic compromises Media Transformations 97

the level of organisations or the media industry is average or low are, at the same time, likely to insist that they, as individuals, are free to do their work in accordance with professional principles. Figure 13. The main threats against editorial independence.

The aforementioned answers can be compared to those which respondents gave to a question about the greatest threats against editorial independence. Cited most often was the answer “media owners establish media outlets for political purposes” (30% of respondents), followed by “media owners are highly dependent on advertisers” (24%), “the media are conceived primarily for business purposes, with social responsibility being in the background” (20%), “the audience underestimates the importance of free and independent media” (18%), and “editors are unable to defend their professional interests” (8%) (see Figure 13). This means that journalists are aware of the influence of media owner’s goals, a lack of traditions in terms of the free press, and carelessness about professionalism (Saalovara and Juzefovičs, 2012).

Some journalists think that few members of the audience consider the independent media to be of value. 18% of the answers show that journalists are well aware of audience attitudes about the quality of media that are subject to pressure and related to ratings and circulation, and instead demand entertaining and easily perceived content. These journalists agree with the statement that “the audience underestimates the importance of free and independent media”. This 98 Anda ROŽUKALNE

answer may show journalists are looking for the causes of limitations on editorial independence and finding them in terms of the concepts of media editors, as well as situations outside of the media organisation – needing to respect the low demands which one segment of the audience have toward media quality. CONCLUSIONS

Data from this survey can be analysed by correlating them with the status of respondents. Respondents who judge the level of editorial independence at their media organisation as low or average represent the regional media, as well as national newspapers and magazines, admitting they have prepared hidden advertising. Most of these respondents have a great deal of professional experience in journalism and have worked in the media world for more than 11 years. This shows there are big problems in Latvia’s printed press with editorial independence and the autonomy of journalists. This is confirmed by a study of Latvian media owners, which shows the influence of daily newspapers has been lost specifically because of their political links, with magazines being saturated with commercialised information that is published in the interests of advertisers.

Respondents who agree that editorial independence can be limited by political links or business considerations admitted to self-censorship. Their job contracts include no agreement on editorial independence, these respondents work as editors, and they have more than 15 years of experience. At the same time, these same respondents believe that the level of editorial independence at their media outlets is average or high. Although these are contradictory data, analysis of interviews with media professionals make it possible to conclude that the status of an editor forces the individual to take responsibility for editorial independence even if that independence must be implemented under limited circumstances. Most editors accept rules from owners which apply to political or business interests, because they believe that that is the only way to survive in an oversaturated media market and to keep their jobs.

Even at those media organisations at which there are limits on editorial independence, journalists find ways of working independently, and that is why this survey shows that editorial independence is rated more highly at the individual level than at the level of organisations

Editorial independence in the Latvian news media: Ownership interests and journalistic compromises Media Transformations 99

and the media industry as a whole. Journalists implement editorial independence by finding ways of freely shaping content that is devot- ed to a specific topic or by being responsible for their “own” columns, sections or broadcasts. This often relates to columns related to culture or entertainment, sports journalism, educational materials and social issues. This professional strategy allows the journalist to feel free and independent, avoiding commissioned content in the relevant media outlet and not losing professional self-confidence, clearly knowing that editorial independence does not go without saying as part of the everyday work of journalistic professionals.

Latvian journalists are accustomed to limits on editorial independence and the situational nature of the extent to which this principle is observed. At an informal level, there are discussions about editorial independence at media outlets, but few professionals discuss this when getting a new job, and even fewer respondents say that the legal right to observe editorial independence in their work is enshrined in their job contracts. This means that the current situation is one in which there is a clearly evident lack of professional principles and traditions, as well as media goals which relate to social responsibility. Respondents in this survey think highly of the individual autonomy of journalists, but media workers clearly understand the limitations on editorial independence that are implemented by owners, directors or editors-in-chief. The contradictory evaluations of editorial independence between “our” and “their” media organisations show that there are differences in the culture of the media and the everyday professional work of journalists in terms of a single media industry. 100 Anda ROŽUKALNE

REFERENCES

Balčytienė, A. (2009). Market-Led Reforms as Incentives for media Change, Development and Diversification in the Baltic States. The International Communication Gazette, Vol. 71 (1–2), 39–49 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1748048508097929.

Grattan, M. (2008). Editorial Independence: An Outdated Concept? University of Queensland, Department of Journalism.

Himelboim, I., and Limor, Y. (2008). Media Perception of Free- dom of the Pess: A Comparative International Analysis of 242 Codes of Ethics. Journalism, Vol. 9, 235–265. DOI: http://dx.doi. org/10.1177/1464884907089007.

Hoey, J. (2008). Editorial Independence in the Electronic Age: New Threats, Old Owners? Retrieved August 25, 2013, from http://www. msmonographs.org/article.asp?issn=0973-1229;year=2008;vol- ume=6;issue=1;spage=226;epage=236;aulast=Hoey.

McLellan, M. (2008). Editorial Independence: Let’s Get Real. Retrieved August 22, 2013, from http://archive.knightdigitalmediacenter.org/ leadership_blog/comments/editorial_independence_lets_get_real/.

McQuail, D. (2010). Mass Communication Theory, 6th Edition. Lon- don: Sage Publications.

Mediadem (2010). Background Information Report: Media Policies and Regulatory Practices in a Selected Set of European Countries, the EU and the Council of Europe. Retrieved May 21, 2013, from http:// www.mediadem.eliamep.gr/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/BIR1.pdf.

Mediadem (2012). Policy Report Addressing State and Non-State Actors Involved in the Design and Implementation of Media Policies Supportive of Media Freedom and Independence, the European Union and the Council of Europe. Retrieved June 22, 2013, from http://www. mediadem.eliamep.gr/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/D4.1.pdf.

Metyková, M., and Waschková Císarová, L. (2009). Changing Jour- nalistic Practices in Eastern Europe: The Cases of the Czech Repub- lic, Hungary and Slovakia. Journalism, Vol. 10(5), 719–736. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1464884909106541.

Editorial independence in the Latvian news media: Ownership interests and journalistic compromises Media Transformations 101

Roudakova, N. (2008). Media Political Clientelism: Lessons from Anthropology. Media, Culture and Society, Vol. 30, 41–59. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0163443707084349.

Rožukalne, A. (2013). Latvia’s Media Owners: A Monograph on Lat- via’s Media System and the Most Important Owners Thereof. Riga: Ap- gāds Zinātne.

Rožukalne, A., and Olšteina, I. (2012). Vadlīnijas mediju profesionāļi- em “Kā medijos runāt par un ar bērniem?” [Guidelines for Media Pro- fessionals: How to Speak About and With Children in the Mass Me- dia?]. Retrieved June 20, 2013, from http://www.tiesibsargs.lv/files/ vadlinijas_ka_medijos_runat_ar_un_par_berniem_2012.pdf.

Salovaara, I., and Juzefovics, J. (2012). Who Pays For Good Journal- ism? Accountability Journalism and Media Ownership in the Cen- tral and Eastern European Countries. Journalism Studies, Vol. 13 (5- 6), 763-774. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2012.664425.

Scholl, A., and Weischenberg, S. (1999). Autonomy in Journalism: How It Is Related to Attitudes and Behavior of Media Professionals. Retrieved August 25, 2013, http://www.scripps.ohiou.edu/wjmcr/ vol02/2-4a-B.htm.

Smith, E.R. (2006). Editorial Independence: So What Does It Mean? Canadian Journal of Cardiology, Vol. 22 (5), 433–434. Retrieved August 25, 2013, from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/ PMC2560541/. ISSN 2029-865X 102 doi://10.7220/2029-865X.09.06

PRIVATISATION OF PRESS IN CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE 1989–1991. CASE STUDY: ROMANIA

Matei GHEBOIANU [email protected] Assistant lecturer of Romanian contemporary history Departament of Romanian History and Southeast Europe Faculty of History, University of Bucharest Bucharest, Romania

ABSTRACT: One of the measures which had a major impact in achieving a free press was the liberalization of the media market, and thus foreign trusts were able to enter the market. These trusts promoted a politics free from any political interests, and also being passed over in the property of certain persons or national groups. In the first years after 1989, foreign press trusts attempted to develop a powerful media network in the respective countries, aiming at making huge profits, since the “hunger for press” was so high that profit was guaranteed. After December 1989 in Romania, the state monopoly gradually vanished due to the appearance of some new press enterprises, even though, at an early stage, setting up a publication did not have the required legal framework. In 1990, it may be noticed that press was regrouped into two large categories: one consisted of headlines which belonged to the state and were later to undergo privatization, and the second one consisted of headlines created by private enterprises, individually or grouped. During the privatization process, various methods were used, according to case. As compared with the other countries in the region, Romania did not benefit from the contribution of foreign capital dedicated to the development of the mass-media system. Despite this lack of foreign capital into the mass-media market, Romanian undertakings were courageous enough to invest in this field, in which gains had become a certainty.

KEYWORDS: privatisation, press, Romania, Hungary, media economy, transition countries

Privatisation of press in Central and Eastern Europe 1989-1991. Case study: Romania Media Transformations 103

In a capitalist society, the media plays a number of roles, serving the readers, society, and consumers. The media disseminates information and offers the interested parties the opportunity to hold public talks, directed towards political and social matters and economic issues. Soon after communism fell, in Central and Eastern Europe several newspapers appeared and their number exceeded the financial power of the patronage and the readers, which turned the battle between newspapers into a fight for survival.

At the same time, journalists in this region realized that both politicians and the audience did not have a preference for investigative journalism. Even the governments and political leaders in the most democratic states in Central and Eastern Europe continued to believe that the most efficient use of the media was to consider newspapers “attack dogs” and not “watch dogs”. They believed the noisiest and the most sarcastic voice was the most efficient one (Johnson, 1998: 113–121).

The paper at hand shall endeavour to analyse the manner in which the press in this region underwent the privatisation process in the years 1989–1991, with emphasis on the manner in which it was conducted in Romania. Furthermore, the paper will endeavour to present the manner in which Western trusts entered these new markets. In Romania’s case the paper will analyse the reasons why this action was not possible. Among the sources used in Romania’s case are a number of interviews with journalists and newspapers’ managers from that period.

One of the measures that had a major impact on achieving a free press was the liberalization of the media market, thus allowing foreign trusts to enter the market, and these trusts promoted a policy independent from any political interests. A stronger censure in countries such as USSR, Romania and Albania as compared to Poland or Yugoslavia left a mark on the formation of a real class of journalists who should have other aspirations than the ones related to Party propaganda. State media was first monopolized and subsequently the liberalization process led to privatisation (Mungiu-Pippidi, 2008: 90). As compared to other countries some of them were an attraction for foreign investors; as such they may be divided into three groups: 104 Matei GHEBOIANU

1. Countries that rushed to take over the Western model by way of an influx of movies, television programs and other media products however investments being excluded. This lead to a decrease in the growth of local products, which were not too numerous.

2. Countries, such as the Baltic countries, in which the political stability, economic growth and the development of the market economy brought investors a profit, however it was too small to achieve a significant growth of their incomes.

3. Countries, such as Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slova- kia and Poland, also including some actions in others which were seen as markets favourable to large investors (Jakubow- icz, 2007: 216–217).

Other factors that made the privatisation of the media easier were identified in Central and Eastern Europe: (1) in some countries in the region, clandestine media was an initial and natural source for the new private press; (2) collapse of state and government control generated some conditions of semi-freedom for the written press; (3) written press private institutions were cheaper and easier to incorporate than private radio and television institutions; (4) great number of former communist newspapers allowed an already existing system to undergo privatisation (Gross, 1999: 89).

After 1989, media became the manager of its own undertaking, by taking over the newspapers, either by privatisation, or by acquiring the name and history of certain publications. As a result of the changes in August 1989, the media underwent profound structural modi- fications which affected their legal and economic statute. In the first years after 1989, foreign press trusts attempted to develop a strong media network in these countries, counting on huge profits, since the “hunger for press” was so great that profit was guaranteed. With the economic changes, the new reforms, and decrease of the purchasing power of the people, these trusts redirected their attention to certain niche publications, which were able to support themselves and, as in the case of Hungary, they chose to withdraw. The explosion of the press also led to an explosion in the number of journalists, driven by their desire to become involved in this sector.

Privatisation of press in Central and Eastern Europe 1989-1991. Case study: Romania Media Transformations 105

As regards privatisation, one success case in that period was the case of Hungary. Due to the liberalization during communism and the subsequent transition, the media was able to become an institution and an independent political player, thus becoming legitimized in front of their readers (Hall and O’Neil, 1998: 125).

The daily newspaperNépszabadság , the newspaper with the largest circulation at national level, separated from the Labour Party, and 40% of the shares were sold to the German conglomerate “Bertels- mann AG”. The government newspaperMagyar Hírlap became an independent concern, and 40% of the shares were sold to Robert Maxwell – Mirror Holding Company. At the same time, the official newspaper of the trade union, Népszava, separated from the state ideology and the connections with the trade unions, however without benefiting from the support of foreign capital (Lánczi and O’Neil, 1996: 89).

During the most popular event that occurred in early April 1990, seven regional newspapers, former bodies of the Hungarian Labour Party, achieved a spontaneous privatisation, transferring them to the ownership of the German press magnate, Axel Springer. The latter did not pay anything for this takeover, he simply guaranteed he would continue to keep them operational (Lánczi and O’Neil, 1996: 89–90).

As such, the Hungarian press achieved the highest degree of privatisation in Central and Eastern Europe, benefiting from the largest foreign capital infusion since the socialist and communist regime, prior to the organization of free elections.

As regards the Polish example, the newspaper Rzeczpospolita, the former government press body, after privatisation became a limited liability company, a sort of joint venture between the Polish government and the French company Socpress. This change allowed the publication in question to gain its editorial independence (Lánczi and O’Neil, 1996: 26).

Another important daily newspaper was Zycie Warszawy, the oldest newspaper in this category, incorporated in 1944. In 1991, the newspaper became part of a new company, which was made up of the following: Societa Televisiana Italiana, several Polish companies and 106 Matei GHEBOIANU

Warsaw Press (the shares were held by several Polish journalists). In 1993, several shares belonging to the Polish party were sold to the Italian partners, which in the end came to hold 80% of the shares (Lánczi and O’Neil, 1996: 26).

The case for privatisation to foreign trusts in the Czech Republic may be exemplified by way of the newspaperMladá fronta – Youth Front – the newspaper of the party’s youth organization, which quickly gained credibility with the help of a team of young journalists who joined the newspaper and which presented in a favourable manner the student demonstrations from November and December 1989. After being renamed into Mladá fronta dnes – Today’s Youth Front, the newspaper started to follow a new path in the Czech media. Mladá fronta dnes became part of trust Socpress, owned by the French magnate Robert Hersant (Kettle, 1996, 45–47).

In 1990, the Swiss Group Ringier entered this market with the financial newspaper Profit, confusing the market all of a sudden by launching the tabloid Blesk – Thunder – in 1992, which quickly became the bestselling newspaper in the Czech Republic.

As regards the case of Romania, the private sector began to make its presence felt in the context of confusing economic politics led by the state and given the absence of regulatory measures able to ensure coherent development. The “sui generis” enterprisers profited by the advantages which the new “free market” of consumer goods offered for coming out of the clandestine state and developing economic activities. The present state was so natural that the free will of each individual became a certainty, lacking any boundaries. They acted on a market which lacked any regulatory measures, and even if they existed they were disregarded (Pasti, 2006: 309). The disso- lution of the communist state led to a fierce fight for taking over its patrimony, especially the one belonging to the party. This fight was regarded by Silviu Brucan as being part of the stage of “wild capital- ism” (Brucan, 1996: 61–128), a stage when an economy of prey was born in which the main elements were the primitive acquisition of capital and the formation of new economic and political elites, and oftentimes they were rooted in the party activists and members of the Security Services (Brucan, 1996: 61–128; Pasti, 2006: 307–498). It is a fight fought on all fronts and which was not subject to any rules.

Privatisation of press in Central and Eastern Europe 1989-1991. Case study: Romania Media Transformations 107

Nicolae Arsenie, former journalist with Adevărul, remembered a discussion with Darie Novăceanu, the newspaper’s manager, with two Spanish journalists, who told him about Spain’s transition from Franco’s dictatorship to democracy. They told him that: “You are left with what you put your hands on”. “And in this manner I succeeded in mobilizing some colleagues into scraping together a patrimony for Adevărul” (Interview 1).

Another problem which the Romanian economy faced was the lack of foreign investments, which may be explained by the lack of political measures aimed at drawing capital. The politics promoted by the National Salvation Front, and expressed in an electoral campaign in the 90s, had a properly defined path contained in the slogan: “we are not selling our country”. This latter remark was directed against Ion Raţiu, one of the opposition leaders, and his program of becoming more open towards the West. The communist isolation had continued after 1990. On the other hand, Western investors were not drawn to Romania in those years. An explanation for this attitude could rest in the lack of information on Romania, which was known primarily from the stories written by Bram Stoker.

As regards the media, after the 1989 events, the state monopoly gradually vanished through the incorporation of new press enterprises, even if, in a first stage, the establishment of a new publication did not benefit from the required legal background. In 1990, we notice a regrouping of the press into two large categories, a part comprising publications belonging to the state and which were to be later privatised, and the other part comprising publications printed by private individuals or grouped enterprisers. The transfer of ownership from the lawful owners (Romanian Communist Party, Communist Youth Union, Romanian Trade Unions General Union) to the government and thereafter to the employees was achieved by way of a number of normative acts (Petcu, 2002: 94). The first normative act was the decree dated 15 January 1990, which gave birth to the Printing House “Presa Liberă”.

As compared to other countries in the region, Romania did not benefit from the contribution of foreign capital in its effort to develop a mass-media system. The state of the press editors, in Bucharest, in the year 1991, had the following structure (Petcu, 2002: 96): 108 Matei GHEBOIANU

Table 1. PUBLISHING OF COMPOSITION OF CAPITAL PUBLISHING OF MAGAZINES AND The structure of NEWSPAPERS PERIODICALS the Romanian capital Full foreign private capital 2 1 press – 1991 (Commercial Mixed capital, Romanian state and Registry, private capital 1 1 Romanian Chamber of Commerce and Full Romanian private capital 244 175 Industry).

Romanian and foreign private capital 24 16

State owned capital in full - 5

As can be noticed from Table 1 above, in 1991 the publications held in full by Romanian capital were predominant. In its capacity as owner, the State was only marginally represented, and the involvement of foreign capital accounted only for an insignificant share. Despite the prospect of gaining a significant profit, the foreign capital and West- ern investors did not see fit to invest in the Romanian mass-media market, in this first period of transition. After the 1989 Revolution, Romania’s image was affected by the political and economic measures of the newly installed power. The inherited communist system could not be radically reformed, therefore as regards the discussed aspect, we may speak about a lack of activity in Romania, as compared to other countries in the region.

Despite the lack of foreign capital in the mass-media market, Ro- manian enterprisers had the courage to invest in this field, in which achieving a gain had become a certainty. In 1990, press owners relied on obtaining profit from selling publications. Advertising was added to this process, which did not exist in the communist period. Profits achieved from press were considerable, and an example of this was România Liberă, which in the first five months of 1990 earned RON 80m with expenses of RON 51m, paid taxes worth RON 11m, and was left with a profit of approximately USD 800,000 (Petcu, 2002: 78). Oftentimes, profits achieved from press were invested in other fields, and thus some of the owners in the mass-media business shortly became successful businessmen.

Privatisation of press in Central and Eastern Europe 1989-1991. Case study: Romania Media Transformations 109

We will hereinafter present the manner in which the main Romanian daily newspapers were privatised, in particular Adevărul – the heir of the former press body of the Romanian Communist Party and România liberă, which became the main opposition newspaper.

As regards România liberă, the manager from that period and, later, also one of the main shareholders of the daily newspaper, Petre Mi- hai Băcanu, recalls the following:

We were the first newspaper that was privatised. Our asso- ciation contract was numbered 001. The problem we were facing was that the printing house was a nuisance for us, in the sense that we had to pay upfront in order for the printing workers to start their work and secondly they had began to censure us. It was at that time that we thought to ourselves we need our own printing house. Decree No. 54 was passed, if I am not mistaken, conceived by Iliescu, (the president of Romania) and Roman (the prime minister of Romania), at the level of slightly larger workshops, no more than 20 persons. I read the law and consulted a specialist in business law, who told me a little about the history of this decree. At the time the decree was conceived, they thought let’s play experts in business law and they turned to a professor in business law, a great authority under the communist regime; he added to the law a very simple matter, these small companies, of no more than 20 persons, as per the Commercial code of 1885, as far as I know it had not been abrogated, could become associated. I consulted with a lawyer and I said “here’s the story, we are a number of 123 persons, we incorporate six companies and we immediately become associated”. I was told nothing was against the law. And there on the spot, at the reception desk, we named six enterprises; I forgot to write the name România Liberă, for which reason when the government found out that we were privatised the entire press became alerted, and all kinds of commissions were sent to investigate us (Interview 2).

When I asked whether he paid any money for this privatisation, he answered: 110 Matei GHEBOIANU

We had nothing, other than our pens, at that time it did not have a name, matters of this nature, with rights registered with OSIM (authority handling the registration of trade- marks). We were lucky we had created a printing house, which we named România liberă and any printing house was able to also print a newspaper (Interview 2).

Petre Mihai Băcanu, along with other members of the editorial staff, began the process of incorporating small enterprises under Decree No. 54/1990. It is not a privatisation process per se, since at that time there were no laws in force in this sector.

By using the provisions of this decree, six small enterprises were incorporated, which became associated, giving birth to the Company R. Transferring România Liberă from the state’s ownership into private ownership was achieved in exchange for no money. Given the conditions previously presented, some criticisms brought against this process are substantiated, because a brand having a significant circulation was privatised. This was achieved as a result of the existing legislative void. In 1991, Company R was registered with the Commercial Registry.

The second presented case is more spectacular, given that the privatisation of the daily newspaper had implications at the highest level in Romania.

In 1990, the daily newspaper Adevărul was the main Romanian newspaper, with a circulation that reached 1.5 million readers a day. At the same time, it was the descendent of the Communist Party’s newspaper, following its direction. In particular it supported the country’s leaders, in the case at hand the team installed by Ion Iliescu.

The moment chosen by Darie Novăceanu (newspaper manager) to privatise Adevărul is not poor in political implications. In March 1991, Petre Roman was elected the national leader of the National Salvation Front. Ever since the autumn of 1990, a fierce fight had begun for grasping power between the group led by Petre Roman and the group led by Ion Iliescu. Albeit at that particular moment, one could not speak about a face to face fight between the two group leaders, the fight was starting to get fiercer. In an article published in Adevărul, Silviu Brucan described this confrontation: “young Turks

Privatisation of press in Central and Eastern Europe 1989-1991. Case study: Romania Media Transformations 111

and a group of Martians, Bârlad citizens and Ştefan-Gheoghiu fol- lowers on the Cotroceni Hill, desperately clinging to key positions in the nomenclature”. Since Darie Novăceanu was close to Petre Roman, Adevărul was an essential “endowment” in the service of his fight. Ever since December 1990, Darie Novăceanu had accepted for publication an article written by C.T. Popescu, Daruri pentru preşedinte (But Mr. President) (Popescu, 1990), one of the articles criticising Ion Iliescu in Adevărul, thus the newspaper had begun to outline its position in this dispute.

At the time the newspaper was privatised, two very important matters significantly influenced this process: the first one was politics, by the fact that Adevărul was a true weapon used in the fight for power, and the second was the economy, the huge patrimony it had gathered, and dividing this patrimony was very important (in 1990 a number of assets were transferred from the ownership of the state in the patrimony of Adevărul; at the same time the incomes achieved from selling newspapers were very high).

From among the interviewees, the paper will present the opinions of some journalists, who played a significant role in its privatisation. The process was commenced by its manager, in particular Darie Novăceanu, who attempted to take over the publication, along with the patrimony gathered in the previous year. After a meeting, Novăceanu was excluded and the journalists took over the newspaper.

Sergiu Andon (at that time a journalist with Adevărul and the president of the Romanian Newspaper Company, the most important press trade union) recalls:

The day of the general meeting followed. The morning was marked by tensions, and the meeting was extremely stormy. I recall speaking excessively. I had put all my eggs in one basket. Most people came from Scînteia (predecessor of Adevărul), not necessarily from a company made up of calm people, but from a professional community that included disciplined persons by their nature. On the one hand, at Scînteia there were free talks, as compared against other editorial staffs, and the sense of discipline and the fact that it was a privilege to work where they worked caused them to be disciplined. All of a sudden they played everything in an adventurous manner, their biogra-