„...the surface chatters, and it's calm below...” (Attila, József: By the Danube, 1936 – translated Peter Zollman, 2005)
HERMAN, József dr:
CHANGING STRUCTURE of PUBLIC MEDIA and the POLITICAL SYSTEM /East and West in Europe/
INTRODUCTION: thesis – and possible conclusions:
A./ RE-CENTRALIZATION may be NEEDED in an economic CRISIS but it SHOULD NOT be EQUAL to MONOPOLIZING PUBLIC NEWS SERVICE. - though there has been a historical LIABLITY for that in Central-Eastern-Europe, even in post-Soviet decades.
B./ Private sphere is different, but also under pressure. We must avoid mistaking freedom of publishing NEWS and freedom of expression OPINION.
1./ MEDIA and STRUCTURE of SOCIETY
Let us put public media to it's own place in the stucture of society.. As Kundera said – a bit earlier - „Life is Elsewhere”. This in my terms means that „life is Live, and far from being equal to politics” - as we all know. There are three levels of human being's life,as, for instance prof. F. Tőkei reminded in his pyramid model as follows: inter-relation between
1./ individuals and nature, (tools of production) 2./ „ and society, and only on the top of the iceberg is individuals and 3./ political upper structure.
As you see my topic belongs to the third one, which I consider the „chattering surface” - though I am fully aware of the close and multiptle interrelation of the three levels. Those provide a full entity of life together. 2./ POLITICAL SYSTEM and MEDIA – regional model in Central-Eastern- Europe
History proved that as far as you go in Europe from the West to the East you can find more and more liability for a shift to mono-centrism, or even to dictatorship. Thinking in terms in Sartori's model it means an increasing mass pressure, and a decreasing level of freedom of expression. From time to time we are moving in a swing between monocentric and pluralistic model. For the sake of better understandig, let us have a look at the model itself:
There exists a hard logic of crisis-cycles in Central-Eastern-Europe, among them Hungary in commonly mentioned as a „ferry-boat” country, which means a kind of an „in-between” position between East and West. This has been a not very pleasant, but historically given posititon, mainly after the World War I, provided - let us call it – an "inverse" theatre, or field of political forces. This fact also means a historical liability to swing extreme - left or right - in Central-Eastern-Europe. It had, or has been an almost direct burden on the PUBLIC, within that, first of all on the MEDIA, which has the most speedy effect on the people's everyday life. THE LOGIC OF HISTORICAL CRISIS CYCLES :IN CENTRAL-EASTERN- EUROPE as below:
THE LOGIC OF „INVERSE” THEATRE OF POLITICAL FIELD IN CENTRAL-EASTERN-EUROPE
The direct impact on public media clearly can be followed in Hungary, after crushing the uprising and freedom fight in1956, in Czecho-Slovakia, 1968 after foiling the „Prague Spring” reforms, also in Poland after 1981, and in Germany after the fall of the Berlin Wall in1989. In all cases the chief and senior editors in public media were changed or fired, and the „new-comers” - not really new, but belongig to the previous underground, or semi-underground, lately legal, and even elected opposition - took over the job. This process meant a kind of political cleansing, and sometimes retaliation – mainly in Hungary during the years of late 50s, and early 60s. 3./ HUNGARY TODAY
A shift back to mono-centrism started last year with an over-whelming, 2/3 majority election victory of FIDESZ-KDNP parties (Young Democtrats and Chritian Democrats) .Before that for 8 years we basically had a kind of a two-partisan system having a slight but firm socialist - liberal majority government, and having also a firm conservative-civic opposition in the parliament.
Looking backwards some 20 years, - after the fall of Berlin Wall - Hungarian field of party system used to be more sophistically articulated. Let's have a look at the results of the elections in 1990:
At that time the IDEOLOGICAL position of the parliamentary parties used to be very much DIFFERENT: (On the basis of the formula used by A. Levendel and L. Keri in an international seminar, in Dubrovnik, April, 1990)
Nowadays having that overwhelming 2/3 majority together with having a pressure to fight economic crisis there has been going a process of RE-CENTRALIZING the political structure, re- centralizing governing and – within that re-centralizing public NEWS EDITION in the media. Main elements of the latest are involved in the so called new „MEDIA LAW”.
The law itself by the GOVERNMENT serves efficiency, ceasing parallel structures in the public media (central state news agency MTI, Hungrarian - state – Radio, Hungarian – state – Television, and DUNA TV, which mainly serves the Hungarian public in the Carpathian Basin and worldwide). First step of re-organizing the structure was centralizing editors to a new, so called „MEDIA- FUND”, and establishing MTI NEWS CENTRE which provides ALL the information for the whole public media. This came together with firing more than 500 journalists.
A very restricting fact for the public media in Hungary that it is fully, or almost fully depending on the STATE BUDGET, as the FEES of the listeners were abolished (the same happened for instance in Albania, in the Baltic states – see analysis of P, Bajomi-Lazar, M, Sukosd, Politikatudományi Szemle, 2009/1, 145.old.)
The re-organization of public media received much critics from the OPPOSITION, from PROFESSIONAL organizations (association of journalists, trade unions, etc.) and from ABROAD as well (newspapers, international organizations, etc.). The most often used word is MONOPOLIZING information, but sometimes critics even speak of the danger of political cleansing, which is – of course – denied by the new media authority, and government officials. The GOVERNMENT says:
The president of the Hungarian media council, A. Szalai (appointed for 9 years in office) declared, that the charges against the new media law are irreasonable. (MTI,, 11/08/26). Cs, Belénessy, the new leader of MTI said tha the public media should be LOYAL to the government CORRECT towards to the opposition.
The OPPOSIITION and PROFESSIONAL organizations say:
The new Hungarian media-world is a step backwards – said . M. Vince, who earlier used to be the the president of MTI. (11/06/17). In his view the main news agency of the country is supposed to be PUBLIC but not NATIONAL or STATE biased. The re-organization of public media, the new media law was critized by the political opposition, and mainly by the professional organizations at home (trade unions, Association of the Hungarian Journalists, MÚOSZ, etc.)and also abroad
The Freedom House in the report called „Nations in Transit 2011” warned that in Hungary the governing parties, having 68% majority in the parliament, weakened the independence of .key institutions as well as the law-based state. This resulted in the most serious decline in the democratic transition of Hungary since 1989 – declares the report of the Freedom House.
POLITICAL SCIENTISTS say:
The Prime Minister of Hungary has a kind of „war-like” logic: quick decisions, and no time for strategy (G.Török, ,A.Gíró-Szász, ): But in Hungary there is NO WAR situation. War against whom? Of course, you can call the FIGHT against CRISIS a war, but it is not correct in this form, by some opinion it is a war against the common people, or the society itself. The „war-like” governing was echoed also in the Western press, e.g. in The Economist, or in he Financial Times (11/08/05), or Le Monde.
At the same time e.g. the Polish Rzeczpospolita. praised the Hungarian Prime Minister saying that V. Orban has a brave and long-running vision which he is able to realize in a professional way. (11/07/14)
The TECHNIQUE: of NEWS EDITING You should know that in the Hungarian Radio we have only12 lines for a minute, and most frequently we have four minutes news, involving internal and foreign politics, ant the weather too. There are, of course newsreel-type magazines, which are much more comfortable and flexible: 180 minutes in the morning, half-an-hour at noon, and in the evening as well. We have, as usual,three channels: one for the WORDS (preferred by aged and elderly people), broadcasting first of all news, but also culture and sport, - that is the so called „government”, or „political” channel. The second one for light music, preferred by mainly youngsters, and the third is for classical music – for everybody. Of course, we have regional channels, and e.g. a special one for live covering parliamentary sessions too (1-3, 4-7). CONCLUSIONS:
There is NO repression - yet (?) - but returned a feeling of FEAR of repression, or THREAT of uncertainty, for instance for losing your job, just cutting your income, etc. - if you are not loyal enough to the government. It results in a kind of „self-censorship” which is, of course much more free and very far away from the „double publicity”of Kadar-era: at that time you had to listen to the official information controlled by the communists party centre, but the public followed the news of Radio Free Europe, of the BBC, or just the Austrian media.
Nowadays you are allowed and supposed to edit the critical views of the opposition, but mainly in the form of „foot-note” sentences. It used to be the same – opposite - way during the past 8 years of socialist-liberal governing. Basically, from professional ethics and rules, you are expected to publish 2/3 government and governing parties' information, and 1/3 of the opposition,IRRESPECTIVELY of which party is governing. But as for the MEDIA itself centralized PUBLIC - news = MTI Hírcentrum:(news centre) is a SELF-RELEAVING DEFINITION. Expression of opinion:is free but usually partisan, depending on what channel and in which panel, or team you are arguing. In Hungarian words there are so called „szekértáborok”, let us say „intellectual coach camps”, whose members are on both ends – right or left – very intelligent, but usually isolated from each other, and do not speak together.
As my colleagues expressed „despite the formal declaration of media freedom, the creation of democratic legal and institutional frameworks, and the privatization of the majority of press and media outlets, HOWEVER, MEDIA FREEDOM WAS REPEATEDLY CHALLENGED in the post- transformation period by both POLITICAL and BUSINESS ELITES.” (P. Bajomi-Lázár – M. Sükösd: Media policy and media polititcs in East Central Europe, Issues and trends, 1989-2008, Pol.tud . Szle, 2009/1, p. 177)
This process means an emergence of a new STATE-PARTY system and the logic of CENTRALIZATION of public media. There are some who say it is a beginning of a „democratic dictatorship” which in my opinion is just a nonsense. But it can be called a new type of hegemonism, a MONOCENTRIC system SURROUNDED by PARLIAMENTARY FORMS and MEANS. The governmental argument for this centralization process are economic crises and national interests, involving the interests of Hungarian minorities within the Carpathian Basin.
CHANGING STURTURE
Nowadays public media proved to be more centralized, private media/press seems to be more diversified, and - as everywhere in the world - social media has been the most free. In Hungary on the whole - sorry to say - FREEDOM of expression LESSONED in STATE controlled field, as well as THREAT of -REPRESSION -(maybe only soft?)- did increased
It all must be understood only within the interrelation of ECONOMIC DEVEVELOPMENT and POLITICAL DEMOCRACY - which you can read in the summary of prof. Gedeon, P, Budapest, Corvinus University, Politikatudományi Szemle, 2009/1
(1) economic development is a precondition of political democracy, or economic development is conducive to – or promoting – political democracy (2) economic development impedes – or hinders – or endangers functioning political democracy (3) political development is conducive to economic development (4) political democracy impedes – hinders – economic development Propositions (1)-(4) share the assunption that there is a close and intristic/belső relationship between ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT and POLITICAL DEMOCRACY.. This assumption is DENIED by the last two propositions:
(5) economic development does NOT support a does NOT impede political democracy (6) political democracy does NOT support and does NOT impede ecenomic development
In my view there does exist a close interrelation, so I am for the first four options, but it depends on historical circumstances – let's have a look for instance on China, with having a centralized state-party political system together with a very effective economic life. If you look for other cases you can see the latest limitations for so called „security reasons” of Facebook and Twitter in France, the legal fight in Italy around Berlusconi's media empire, there are serious doubts about the planned new Serbian media strategy, not to speak about the post-Soviet region, where it is sometimes a risk of life to publish news, and even harder task to commit fact- finding journalism. If you remember, in Serbia during the first years of Southern-Slavic civil war the Belgrade government tried to censor or limit information which already at that time was impossible as we, among others in Budapest followed the news service of B-91 radio on the internet.
THE MAIN QUESTION IS:
Do we really need a centralized SYSTEM and centralized INFORMATION in this crisis-bothered Central-Eastern-Europe? This raises dangers and doubts about the authentic public media. But hope is always, and optimism has always been a minimal working hypothesis of living. ------
Notes TŐKEI, Ferenc: Az ázsiai termelési mód kérdéseihez, Kossuth,1965 (in six languages)
TŐKEI, Ferenc: A társadalmi formák elméletéhez, Kossuth,1968 (in four languages)
SARTORI, Giovanni: Parties and Party Systems, 1976, Cambridge, London, New York, Melbourne.
SIMONFFY, András: Kompország katonái, Magvető, 1981
BAJOMI-LÁZÁR, Péter – SÜKÖSD, Miklós: Médiapolitikai trendek Kelet-Közép-Európában, 1989-2008, Politikatudományi Szemle, 2009/1, 141-158. old. - see also in:Communications and Cultural Policies ins Europe, Barcelona, Generalitat de Catalunya, 2008
SZŰCS, Jenő: Vázlat Európa három történeti régiójáról (Történelmi Szemle, 1981. 3. sz., önálló kötetben: Bp., 1983; Les trois Europes, Fernand Braudel előszavával, L'Harmattan, Domaines danubiens sorozat, Párizs, 1985, II. kiadás Virág Ibolya, Párizs, 2002);
======
The author of this contribution, HERMAN, József is a retired senior news editor of Kossuth Radio, Budapest, and also a political scientist. See for details in homepage drher.tripod.com - mainly in Hungarian, partly in English
P.s: sorry for some misprints, like FLUID polities in Sartori's model, etc