Leaks, Streams, Floods

Report of the Commission on Media Policy:

Chaired by

Ellen Mickiewicz Erhard Busek James R. Shepley Professor of President, European Forum Alpbach Public Policy Studies and Professor of Political Science, Duke University

Rapporteur – Craig LaMay, Northwestern University

October 28-29, 2011 Vienna, Austria

European Forum Alpbach Invalidenstrasse 5/7 A-1030 Vienna Phone: 43-1-718171114 Fax: 43-1-7181701 www.alpbach.org

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank the following contributors for their support of this meeting: ORF, Österreichischer Rundfunk (Austrian Broadcasting Corporation) for hosting the meeting and providing professional assistance, and the DeWitt Wallace Center for Media and Democracy at Duke University. We would also like to thank the City of Vienna, Styria Media Group AG and ERSTE Foundation.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

. Introductions ...... 4

. Commission on Media Policy: Participants ...... 6

. “Leaks, Streams, Floods” — Report of the Meeting of the Commission on Media Policy ...... 8

. Policy Recommendations ...... 16

. About the Commission on Media Policy...... 17

. About the European Alpbach Forum...... 19

INTRODUCTION

DR. ELLEN MICKIEWICZ JAMES R. SHEPLEY PROFESSOR OF PUBLIC POLICY STUDIES AND PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL SCIENCE, DUKE UNIVERSITY

The Commission on Media Policy had, perhaps, its most vigorous and urgent meeting in 2011. Concern about the flood of materials in newsrooms and for journalists and media directors all over the represented countries was palpable. I say “flood of materials”, because, as the participants made clear, this flood may or may not be “information” at all. There was not a participants who was unaffected by the new and severe tests they now had to undergo. Leaks are pouring in; counterfeit Facebook pages purport to tell hidden stories of great moment. The two days spent at this most important meeting addressed this burden, or is it opportunity, or is it an investigative starting point to be taken very seriously, indeed?

It was clear from the beginning of our vivid discussions, that no organization of individual is spared the requirement of analyzing leaks and verifying them. However, how does one adequately verify such fast-moving tides in a competitive media world? Not many news organizations have the resources and tradition of the BBC, which now has large numbers of multi-lingual experts on call. In one case, when attempting to verify the report on the death of Osama Bin Laden, the BBC could call on a lip-reader who not only translated what people in the news were saying, but even what dialect they used.

Few have the capacity of the BBC in this regard, yet all the participants are aware of the opportunities and dangers of so much “information” flooding the newsroom. For some, it was the motive of the leader that was most important, and from identification of the motive came clues to the veracity of the leaks. Some participants find that journalistic standards coupled with high politicization of the media, made the job of giving news to the public very difficult.

The report that follows presents the full picture of this meeting and includes the recommendations. These recommendations are particularly important, I think, because of the world-wide need to do something about an uncontrollable resource in the new technologies that could be extremely important to the public the media serve, IF the public can count on reliability and honesty. It seems to me that this is the challenge of the coming decades. What we are experiencing now may be only a few drops of the real flood to follow.

We could not have done this work with these distinguished participants without the much appreciated support of ORF, the Austrian Broadcasting Company, the ERSTE Foundation, the European Forum Alpbach, and the Sanford School of Public Policy of Duke University. To Patricia Mussi and Jennifer Wetl we owe so much of what happened and thank her for her apparently effortless organization of this complex meeting. We are most grateful to Rudi Fehrmann and Verena Machart at ORF for their

4 able support and perfect preparations. Finally, and first, there is no way we can adequately recognize the superb work done by Craig LaMay, our rapporteur and expert participant. Although he was not able to come, Professor Ken Rogerson of Duke University, provided great help in the planning of the meeting. Foremost among any I would thank, would be, of course, my extraordinary Co-Director, Dr. Erhard Busek.

INTRODUCTION

DR. ERHARD BUSEK PRESIDENT, EUROPEAN FORUM ALPBACH

The Commission on Media Policy has developed into a very important partner for many different individuals and organisations. First at all, the networking between the participants is outstanding. Secondly, the Commission’s work influences legislation and behaviour on the media question by focusing on the tremendous changes which our world is undergoing now. It is certainly a kind of mirror in which we can look to see what is going on.

The 2011 event made it visible that it is a very sustainable activity which we have been doing for a very long time. The participants take obligations, they are not forced to come, but there is always a huge interest in joining this meeting, especially in 2011. The meeting not only mirrors what is going on in the medias in general and in different countries in particular, but it also shows in which way media and journalism have to handle the existing problems. One of the most important things is the exchange of experience in information, which shows that the quality of media in the region is developing – but it is necessary to focus on everything that is going on here. The way that we are getting a kind of neo-nationalism or old egoism in the different countries is also creating a lot of problems concerning mutual understanding. Media are a guarantee for being able to understand the other. It impressed me very much that all the participants are eager to meet again. The reason is not to have some nice days in Vienna but to have a personal exchange mutual knowledge about the responsibility of the media. In so far the Commission is serving a purpose, which is extremely important for the quality of democracy and the development of the global village.

I have to say many thanks to those who are supporting these efforts, especially the Terry Sanford School of Duke University, the European Forum Alpbach, ERSTE Foundation and quite specially the Austrian Broadcasting Corporation ORF, which is greatly contributing the developments in Europe and taking on a truly European role. Also many thanks to the rapporteur, Craig LaMay, to Ken Rogerson and Patricia Mussi but especially to Ellen Mickiewicz, who is the backbone of our work.

5 COMMISSION ON MEDIA POLICY:

LEAKS, STREAMS, FLOODS

VIENNA, AUSTRIA OCTOBER 28-29, 2011

PARTICIPANTS

CO-CHAIRS Erhard Busek President, European Forum Alpbach; Former Vice Chancellor of Austria Ellen Mickiewicz James R. Shepley Professor of Public Policy Studies, Duke University; Professor of Political Science, Duke University, USA

PARTICIPANTS Gulnara Akhundova Head, Azerbaijan Media Center, Azerbaijan Agron Bajrami Editor-in-Chief, Koha Ditore, Kosovo Boris Bergant Former Vice President of the European Broadcasting Union; Media Adviser; President of the Board, South East Europe Media Organisation (SEEMO), Slovenia George Chirita Romanian Association of Broadcasters, Romania Nuri M. Colakoglu President, Dogan Media International; Chairman and CEO, New Media Company (NMC); Chairman, HTV (Turkey’s Health and well being TV), Turkey Johann P. Fritz Former Director, International Press Institute, Austria Dusan Gajic Editor-in-Chief, South East Europe TV Exchanges (SEETV), Belgium David Gallagher Deputy technology editor, The New York Times, USA Drago Hedl Editor, Jutarnji List, Croatia Ryszard Holzer Head of the Business Section, Tygodnik Wprost, Poland Maja Hrgovic Journalist and Fiction Writer, Croatia Milorad Ivanovic Executive Editor, Novi magazin weekly, Serbia Carola Kaps Former economics correspondent, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung; Economics journalist, Belgium Omer Karabeg Journalist, Balkan Service, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Czech Republic Fivos Karzis News Anchor and Producer, Athina 984, City of Athens Municipal Radio, Greece Petar Komnenic Editor, TV Vijesti, Montenegro Craig L. LaMay Commission Rapporteur; Associate Professor of Journalism, Medill School of Journalism, Northwestern University, USA Radomir Licina Senior Editor and Member of the Board, DANAS, Serbia Patrick McCurdy Assistant Professor, Department of Communication, University of Ottawa, Canada Anthony Mills Press Freedom & Communications Manager, International Press

6 Institute, Austria Pavol Múdry Vice-Chair, International Press Institute; Media Consultant, Media Communication Advisor, Slovakia Saso Ordanoski Director for Media and Public Affairs, VEVE Group, Macedonia Petar Pountchev CEO / DIRECTOR 95.8 RADIO 3, Serbia Paul Christian Radu Executive Director, Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project, Romania Alina Radu-Mazureac Director, Ziarul de Garda, Moldova Andrei Richter Director, OSCE Office of the Representative on Freedom of the Media, Austria Anneliese Rohrer Columnist, Die Presse, Austria Rainer Rosenberg Head of Special Programs, Austrian Broadcasting Corporation (ORF), Austria Nouneh Sarkissian Managing Director, Internews Armenia Dietrich Schwarzkopf Former Program Director, ARD; Former Vice President, ARTE, Germany Edina Secerovic Journalist, Bosnia and Herzegovina Andriy Shevchenko Member of Ukrainian Parliament, Chairman of Free Speech Committee, Ukraine Taras Shevchenko Director, Media Law Institute, Ukraine Olexiy Solohubenko Executive Editor, Americas and Europe Region, BBC World Service, Great Britain Fiona Spruill Editor, Emerging Platforms, The New York Times, USA Milka Tadic-Mijovic Executive Director, Monitor, Montenegro Neven Tomic President of Council of Regulatory agency for communications in Bosnia and Herzegovina; CEO Marti d.o.o. Zagreb, Croatia Zrinka Vrabec-Mojzes Advisor for Social Affairs to the President of the Republic of Croatia Oliver Vujovic Secretary-General, South and East Europe Media Organisation (SEEMO), Austria Marek Wollner Head and host of investigative programm Reporteri CT, Czech Republic Alexander Wrabetz Director General, Austrian Broadcasting Corporation (ORF), Austria

OBSERVERS Majlinda Aliu Balkan Fellowship for Journalistic Excellence, Kosovo Darko Duridanski Balkan Fellowship for Journalistic Excellence, Macedonia Lavdim Hadimi Balkan Fellowship for Journalistic Excellence, Kosovo Robin Gosejohann Project Manager, Europe Program, ERSTE Foundation, Austria Kay Mühlmann Head, Master’s Programme in Quality Journalism and New Technologies, Donau-Universität Krems, Austria Nikoleta Popkostadinova Balkan Fellowship for Journalistic Excellence, Bulgaria Nenad Radicevic Balkan Fellowship for Journalistic Excellence, Serbia Knut Neumayer Director, Europe Program, ERSTE Foundation, Austria Laura Ranca PhD candidate in Media and Communication, Social Sciences Department, Loughborough University, United Kingdom Michael Roither Head, Center for Journalism and Communications Management, Donau-Universität Krems, Austria Bernhard Seyringer Gesellschaft für Kulturpolitik, Austria Eleonora Veninova Balkan Fellowship for Journalistic Excellence, Macedonia Adelheid Wölfl Editor, Der Standard, Austria

Leaks, Streams, Floods

Introduction are. (For that reason among others, the U.S. In the process of gathering news, the Supreme Court has refused to give relationships that journalists have with their constitutional protection to the journalist-source sources are based on both professional norms relationship.) and law. Where the law is concerned, the Making matters more difficult, today anyone with journalist-source relationship is unusual. a smart phone is a virtual walking television Typically, where the law recognizes promises of station. The worlds of traditional, institutional confidentiality given by journalists to their journalism are no longer separate from the world sources it is because of the public interest in of bloggers, hackers and other ‘citizen protecting private relationships Many journalists.’ Indeed, they increasingly overlap. It professionals – lawyers, physicians, clergy – is commonplace for traditional news cannot be compelled to divulge the secrets of organizations to operate a “news portal” through those they serve. The legal case for recognizing which anyone, anywhere – people whose a journalist-source relationship is very different; identity and credibility are unknown – can submit it is based on the public interest in disclosure, in video, audio and photographs of news events exposing to public scrutiny the activities of around the world. This is precisely the “flood” of government officials and powerful private material that the Commission discussed in its interests. Of course there is also a privacy 2011 meeting. How is a news organization interest at stake: If journalists could not protect supposed to authenticate or verify information it their sources they would have no sources other receives this way? What should it do with than official pronouncements and corporate material that was almost certainly obtained press releases. But at its core this protection is illegally, or whose original source is unknown? about the integrity of the democratic process, The “leaks” of an earlier media age usually which depends on meaningful public access to came from sources journalists knew and had information about government and public reason to find credible, if not to trust. There have officials. always been leakers: public officials who want That is the dilemma.If public disclosure and to get ahead of or control a damaging story, or democratic functioning are the foundation for to test public reaction to a policy idea; protecting the journalist-source relationship, whistleblowers in government and the private governments and public opinion can argue that sector who want to protect themselves in an where a story concerns official corruption, unfolding crisis, or who genuinely want to be criminal activity, public safety, national security helpful. Sometimes there are government or some other legitimate social interest, that officials whose job is to leak. Leaks are the oil journalists should reveal their sources. Certainly that lubricates a lot of government activity. individuals who have been accused of Today, however, news organizations receive wrongdoing, or who have been injured by false leaks from sources who themselves may have stories or privacy invasions, may believe that a no idea who the actual leaker might be, or the news organization should be accountable for its motivations behind the leak. Wikileaks is the reporting. If transparency is good for democracy, best known example of this, and Wikileaks it is presumably good for democracy’s already has imitators and successors (see, for watchdogs, too. example, Rospil.info, from Russia; PirateLeaks, Even where protecting the journalist-source from the Czech Republic, and the hacking group relationship is in the public interest, there is a Anonymous). basic free expression problem: Who qualifies as This changed and changing nature of the a journalist for the purpose of claiming that journalist-source relationship was the subject of protection? By definition, a legal privilege the 2011 meeting of the Commission on Media belongs to a clearly defined class of people. Policy, and the conference began with an Journalists in democratic societies rarely meet overview of the new environment for that specific requirement, since they are rarely newsgathering – the “flood” of information that licensed or even trained as other professionals inundates journalists and the public alike.

8 Speed and identifying leaks publishing.” Opening the Commission’s discussions on leaks Radu-Mazureac illustrated her point by were three journalists who described what one recounting a story sent to her by a usually of them called “the age of too much information.” reliable source alleging a recently married Nuri Colakoglu, the president of Turkey’s government minister was involved in the sex- Dogan Media Group, observed that leaked trafficking of children. On its face the story was information has “become a major instrument in plausible, she said, since “Moldova is known as the way things are developing in Turkey.” a source for trafficking” and the occasional Recent political developments there, he said, participation of public officials in that trade. have included the arrest and prosecutions of Among other evidence for the claim, the source senior officers in the armed forces – an directed the reporters to a Facebook page “full institution that once operated with near impunity of ugly stuff,” but “we still weren’t pleased.” in the country – after “a journalist working at Eventually Radu-Mazureac tracked down the home had someone knock at his door and give source in person, only to find he had been him a suitcase full of documents issued by top abroad the last several weeks and had never military officers” planning a coup. Several sent her anything. “Someone created the observers outside the country have criticized the Facebook page and used [the source’s] name to reporting and questioned the authenticity of the create a false story, “ she said. “Someone documents. Turkey’s history of military wanted to use our paper to discredit this intervention made the story believable, minister. You have to check, always.” Colakoglu said, “but the way it was handled Still, said Czech investigative reporter and created resentment from the ruling party” that TV news anchor Marek Wollner, leaks are an was the object of the coup attempt. In a previous essential part of investigative reporting. He era, he said, “the golden rule was not to disclose recounted an investigation his news program, our sources because that would be killing the “”Reporteri CT,” broadcast about a former golden goose, and even in the Turkish government official who had defected from the constitution at that time there were articles that ruling party but, in exchange for government stipulated that no journalist could be forced to pay-offs, still supported it in key votes. The disclose a source. But times have changed police leaked the story, Wollner said, apparently dramatically.” The sheer volume of information frustrated at the government’s lack of that comes in now, most of it from unknown cooperation in the police investigation of the sources, requires news organizations to rethink matter. An advisor of then-Prime Minister Mirek how they handle that material from both an Topolanek called the reporter urging that the ethical and legal point of view. It has also story be dropped and offered in return for his provoked strong government reaction, including cooperation damaging information about an legal prosecutions. The compulsory opposition party member. The reporter recorded transparency of a digital world may help the advisor’s phone call and included it in the democratization, Colakoglu said, but it may have story. The result of the story was a no- a downside, too. Certainly for professional confidence vote in the government during the journalists intent on maintaining their integrity time it held the rotating EU presidency – a and independence it is important to ask “where national embarrassment. does public life end and private life start. “Some people wanted revenge,” Wollner Morally or journalistically, is this acceptable?” said. “Even other TV reporters said it was unfair Alina Radu-Mazureac, director of the of us to broadcast surreptitious recording. They Moldovan newspaper Ziarul de Garda, was the thought it was a private conversation – why first among several Commission members who broadcast it?” More importantly, Wollner said, answered that question by insisting that scandals in Czech government occur so anonymously submitted photographs and phone frequently, and are sometimes so brazen, that records and other documentation needed “20 the public doesn’t seem to care about them. sources,” not the “two or three” suitable for most “Journalists are not admired in my country, they stories. “Where you might double or triple check are mocked. It makes it easier for politicians to normally, you have to check many times with a survive these things. They have longer lives story based on leaks. Checking sources is than journalists do in my country. I’ve been in critical.” As important, she said, a leak is not in my job for 7 years – a record. Most shows like itself a reason to do a story. “The journalist has mine shut down in two years.” to decide whether it’s newsworthy in the first Discussion on these issues concerned the place, and then do an investigation to make sure problem of authenticating leaked information, the allegation is adequately proved before judging its significance, and the ethics of

9 publishing it. While legal liability is also an Schevchenko said, establish a report’s credibility important part of working with leaks (see below), and are the very essence of serving the “public for the most part the Commission members interest.” focused their discussions throughout the two- Another point of discussion, raised first by day meeting on normative concerns: Zrinka Vrabec Mojzes, a journalist and currently newsworthiness, privacy, editorial an advisor to president of Croatia, was why independence. certain news organizations are routinely the All of these concerns, noted BBC World recipients of government leaks while others Service Executive Editor Olexiy Solohubenko, never receive them. “Do they pay for it, or have are elements of that “hard to define, hard to they made a deal for it? Are they friendly to defend” concept, the public interest, which, while powers in the government or in the private it may not always suffice as a legal defense, is sector? In my country leaks always go to the big still at the core of news judgment. With respect corporate media, never independent media or to leaks, several Commission members said, small newspapers, but to large corporate media serving the public interest means being clear that are in deals with the politicians in power.” with sources about how their information will be Add to that, she said, that many leaks are used. Terms like “on background” or “off the calculated smears by politicians – “designed to record” often mean different things at different destroy someone” – and concerns about a news organizations, to journalists and their leaker’s agenda are really about the credibility sources. Rarely is their meaning explicit. The and independence of the news organization critical thing for journalists, said Dietrich itself. Schwarzkopf, former program director of Other Commission members agreed with German National Radio and Television (ARD), is Vrabec-Mojzes’ assessment. In Bosnia- establishing the source’s credibility. So long as Herzegovina, said Neven Tomic, a the information is not false, he said, other communications regulator in the country, “we concerns – like the source’s motive – are know who is writing against whom, who belongs secondary. to whom.“ “Real investigative journalism in Colakoglu agreed: It’s not the agenda that’s Bosnia-Herzegovina is losing the battles,” he important, but the information. Whether the said. Investigative reporters are subject to civil information is true or not is the vital question. and criminal prosecutions, and in any case “no Whom the information affects and why the one resigns, no one goes to jail” as a result of leaker is providing it are secondary issues at their reports. “All the other news organizations best. If it is true, the public ought to know.” are collaborators, part of the system, and in Other Commission members strongly those cases the sources of leaks are protected.” disagreed on the importance of establishing a Agron Bajrami, editor-in-chief of Koha Ditore source’s motive, but mostly because they in Kosovo, agreed about the need to investigate thought that finding the motive was the most a source’s agenda, but noted that a leaker’s direct and reliable way to test information for decision to give information to a particular news truthfulness. “We are faced with trained organization is not necessarily a sign of manipulators everywhere,” said Saso Ordanoski corruption. “Leaks often go to the most credible of VeVe Group in Macedonia. “Everyone who media, whoever they are. Leakers go there leaks has an agenda. What is it? If you do not because they want to have the greatest impact discover that agenda, then you are in trouble. on the public, and that means going to major This is the essence of professionalism: Who is news outlets.” This logic is especially true in his the guy? What are his sources? Do you check part of Europe, Bajrami said, where him out? You uncover the agenda by governments routinely ignore reporters’ requests investigating the leaker. Most of the time we for information under open records laws. (The know whom we are dealing with, but not most comprehensive survey of freedom of always.” information laws worldwide can be found at Establishing a leaker’s agenda, said freedominfo.org) “So we depend on leaks of Ukrainian journalist and Parliamentary deputy documents that somebody takes or steals. Or if Andriy Shevchenko, is the least a news not that, a letter, or a phone tip.” After that, organization must do. Information published establishing the agenda of the source is key to without some information about the who the protecting the credibility of the news source is, how and why the information came to organization – thus making it more likely that it the news organization, whether there are any will be the recipient of future leaks. documents or other sources who can Based on this discussion, the Commission corroborate the story – all of these, made these recommendations:

10 Leaks are part of the news cycle, and as benefitted from the vetting done by the large such news organizations should apply the news organizations, since portions of the same criteria of public interest and news Wikileaks’ 2010 diplomatic files included value to leaks. information on the secret interrogation sites the Thorough and meticulous verification U.S. Central Intelligence Agency has operated in must precede any decision to publish a leak. his country. But in general, he said, both official The leaker’s agenda and motive are part and private sources now so overwhelm the of the investigation, and should form the traditional media with leaks that there is simply context for publishing the leak. no way to fruitfully sort through them. Leaking, Journalists who fail to meet these he said – with agreement from many other professional standards can create errors that participants – is now a kind of “public relations damage a news organization’s credibility and strategy” intended to confuse and overwhelm reputation. journalists and the public. “After a while nobody knows what’s true,” he said, “so nobody cares Leak Leaders anymore.” In its second session the Commission The connecting thread between news giants continued its discussion on the need to confirm like the BBC or the New York Times and many information obtained by leaks, but with a specific of the news organizations represented at the kind of “leak” in mind, user-generated content: Commission table is that all of them have to deal that is, information provided directly to new with the challenges of social media. Those organizations by their audiences, and challenges are both ethical and technological, information that news sites can harvest and some news organizations are clearly better themselves from social media platforms like positioned than others to meet them. On the Facebook or Twitter. Discussion explored the ethical side, again, is the challenge of an relationship between the institutional press that environment where fraud and deception are most Commission members represent – easy and verification can be all but impossible. newspapers, radio and television companies, Even the BBC, Solohubenko said, was fortunate both private and public, news agencies – and that the infamous images of a brutalized and the great sea of Web publishers that comprise then-dead Muammar el-Qadhafi (published only the modern information environment. about a week before the Commission meeting) Characterizations of that relationship varied arrived in mid-week rather than on a Sunday; considerably. BBC executive Olexiy therefore, the BBC could draw on its many Solohubenko offered a view commonplace human resources to authenticate them. That among large media enterprises like his own: that process goes on in a competitive business it is the “brand name of a reputable organization” where speed matters but where “mistakes can that gives credibility to the information provided kill you.” “Social media rewrite the rules,” from non-traditional news sources. Wikileaks, he Solohubenko said, and force news organizations said, ”would be nothing” without the New York to rewrite their standards for taste and news Times, the Guardian and El Pais, the judgment repeatedly and on the fly. “You don’t newspapers that reported Wikileaks’ now have days or even hours to discuss these things notorious 2010 document dumps. The credibility anymore, but sometimes publish on the authority of Wikileaks’ disclosures was rooted almost of a single editor.” entirely in the reputation of the news media that Several Commission participants were covered them, Solohubenko said, and furthered doubtful, arguing that a constant rewriting of by their ability to contextualize and explain the normative standards meant the real issue was documents using their own significant human less about news judgment than about assessing and technological resources. At the BBC, he risk, not only to brand reputation but to their said, that ability included a global network of 100 survival. Nuri Colokoglu wondered if “TV as we people whose job is to authenticate user- know it is dying” and will eventually disappear generated content. into video-on-demand and other digital video Most Commission members represent news sources. And while virtually everyone media that do not have the BBC’s resources, agreed that traditional media hold the high and as Ryzard Holzer of Polish newspaper ground of credibility, several also doubted Tygodnik Wprost said “we have no ability to whether that made a difference to any except a process or check the twenty or more leaks we few elite and global news organizations. “Some get weekly. There are only 25 of us and we have of us have already lost the race” to online media, to ignore most of these leaks.” In the specific said Holzer: “Print media, for example. No one case of Wikileaks, he said, Poles in general buys a newspaper to read stories they could

11 easily get online yesterday. Radio and television Leaks and publics are still part of the race, but not newspapers.” The third session of the Commission’s meeting The idea of partnering with and employing considered the consequences of leaks for the non-traditional, online news sites is common- public. Because so much ‘leaked’ information is place today in many newsrooms. Many either mistakenly or maliciously false, what do Commission members acknowledged this even citizens need to understand about this flood of as they questioned its value, noting for example material, whether they actively seek it or that the practice known as “crowd sourcing” – passively receive it? And what about the asking audience members to send in information consequences of citizens’ online activity for their and tips on all kinds of public issues, in effect own privacy (and perhaps their own security)? It acting as reporters – can be effective as a is well known that commercial and government newsgathering method while also building entities collect records of individual electronic unique relationships with the audience. In other transactions. Commercial firms wish to make words, social media have to be viewed both as money from those data through aggregation and competitive news sources and as potential sale, and governments will be strongly tempted partners. Several Commission members offered to use them for surveillance purposes. the view that news organizations that are not Journalists have a role to play in establishing the active contributors to social media are making a normative standards for this new world, by their strategic mistake. As Romanian journalist Paul conduct and through their news coverage. Radu noted (and discussed further, below) the Several Commission members saw these issues networked character of online media makes in familiar terms. Governments have always possible investigative reporting about activities tried to use the press to spread disinformation that are themselves globally networked – and to frustrate truthful reporting, said Pavol organized crime, in particular – reporting that Mudry, vice-chair of the International Press would otherwise be impossible for any news Institute. The major difference between the organization to do on its own. communist and post-communist period, he said, A final point of discussion in this session has been the sheer amount of material that concerned government monitoring of online comes in, very often from an unknown and media, and the risks such monitoring posed to unseen source. Many news organizations free speech generally. Saso Ordanoski was publish whatever they get even when there is no emphatic on this point, arguing that government supporting documentation and no independent attempts everywhere to “regulate” online speech investigation, he said, a practice that has served – from China to the United States, Macedonia to to undermine public confidence in journalism. Iran – are unrelenting. At stake, he said, is the On the positive side of the ledger, said Mudry, future of democracy itself, and he was not Slovakia now has an open records law that optimistic. His concern was not so much that requires all public agencies to publish their governments will try to restrict speech directly contracts online, a requirement that strongly through content regulation. Just as likely, and deters government corruption, and that apparently already well underway, is promotes good reporting. governmental monitoring of the lengthy trail of The flood of information is irreversible, several electronic data that virtually all of us leave Commission members said, but that will not behind each day. That monitoring is unseen and deter governments from attempting to control it, often secret, and whether it is lawful or not the or as likely to monitor it, to identify and punish result is the same: governments seek to people it sees as threats, thus encroaching on determine what their citizens read and watch rights of speech and association. Andriy and think, where they go and with whom they Shevchenko noted that “in our part of the world associate. governments and companies make attempts to From this discussion the Commission made control information for less than noble this recommendation: purposes,” and described the decision by the Social media increasingly serve both as Russian government to hold Web publishers sources and as a publishing platform for legally responsible for the information others news and should provide journalists with post to their sites or provide to them, true or not. new ways of interacting with audiences. Ukraine, he said, has required mandatory registration of “news agencies” – licensing, in effect – and defined a news agency as anyone who collects and shares information. Such a rule means that anyone who uses the Internet could be deemed a news agency and thus susceptible

12 to government harassment and detention. Legal and ethical dimensions But in Ukraine, too, a new open records law Until this point, the Commission’s discussions became effective in 2010. The law assumes that about leaks focused on journalism ethics and government financial information is owned by professionalism. This session turned explicitly to the public and available to anyone who requests legal in receiving and publishing leaks. The it, and that information can only be withheld in a session opened with Omer Karabeg of Radio few, specific and exceptional circumstances; Free Europe describing an ethical dilemma that and it establishes a five-day time limit for would have been familiar to many Commission government agencies to respond to requests for members: whether to publish information about information. And in Ukraine, as in most a citizen’s past as an informer during the countries, the government routinely finds that Communist period. Karabeg’s dilemma began exceptional circumstances do exist and so with an information request to a U.S. agency refuse to disclose information that should be under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act, a public. “Only about 40 out of 600 inquiries got query that returned about 2,000 documents and proper responses last year,” Shevchenko said, the names of about 350 people throughout but he was cautiously optimistic that the law Communist Europe thought to have spied on would in time compel greater transparency in their fellow citizens. When he developed a book government, a way of “providing more true and proposal from these files, Karabeg chose not to trustworthy information to the public.” identify some of the people who turned up in the Montenegrin journalist Milka Tadic-Mijovic from files but who were still living, and whose children the Monitor newspaper described a situation in and grandchildren were almost certainly her country where leaks have replaced rumors unaware of their pasts. as the common currency of news coverage, but The names and stories were newsworthy, she was concerned about the high risks of Karabeg said, and his decision not to identify retribution, and not just from government. them eventually resulted in a decision not to Because the government and organized crime write the book. A factor in that decision, he said, are often intertwined, she said, ordinary people was the private lives these people had chosen to “are scared to talk, and most believe that live. If they had chosen instead to live public someone in government or the police is lives, if they had “been a hard-liner, a religious following where they are clicking on the or moral type,” perhaps he would have acted Internet.” That power of intimidation results in a differently, he said. Nonetheless, “I was population that is just as cowed and silenced – criticized by several of my colleagues for not and just as susceptible to government and behaving like a journalist, for not exposing criminal abuse – as they were in the communist information.” He concluded with the observation period. that the speed and breadth of disclosure made Discussion on these issues emphasized the possible by digital communications makes the usual remedies: greater transparency in ethical calculus much more difficult than it used government, enforced through legal to be. Governmental and private databases requirements and the work of journalists to include personally identifiable information about expose corruption and urge reform; and greater virtually everyone; those databases are rarely transparency in journalism itself through better secure; and private firms want to make money journalism ethics codes, particularly as they from that information. Traditional notions of concern matters of privacy, reputation and public privacy are difficult to sustain in that safety. Pavol Mudry summed the matter up environment. when he said that the critical question is “the So are traditional ideas about reporting, said responsibility of media and journalists.” Even investigative reporter Paul Radu of the benign governments cannot be counted on to be Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting open or truthful, and powerful interests in Project (Romania), who brought an entirely government and the private sector will always try different perspective to the subject of leaks and to manipulate what is covered as news and how. floods. Transnational organized crime, which is Against that effort, Mudry said, the remedy is estimated to account for about 3.6 percent of now what it has always been, “journalistic global GDP, can be adequately covered only by professionalism.” reporters who work in networks and across national borders – just as organized crime does – and who can collect, organize, search and link large data sets. In that enterprise, Radu said, journalists working in traditional news organizations would be wise to partner with

13 some of the very non-traditional reporters out obligations in handling material that was there – whom Radu called “civic hackers.” obtained illegally or whose publication offends These hackers can unearth data that, when some other established legal interest, such as a linked with other data sets, can identify property right, privacy or reputation. The otherwise unseen and unsuspected relevant case, Stoll v. Switzerland, involved the relationships between governments, public leak of secret diplomatic cables sent by the officials, private firms and criminal organizations. Swiss ambassador to the United States to the This activity is analogous to what commercial Swiss minister of foreign affairs on the matter of marketers call “data mining,” a technology that is secret Swiss bank accounts created to benefit also used by government intelligence agencies Jewish survivors of the Holocaust. The leaked to uncover criminal activity and national security cables resulted in two stories in the newspaper, threats. It is also cost-effective: journalists one of which was headlined “Ambassador working in networks can cover stories they do Jagmetti insults the Jews” and accused the not have the resources or expertise to cover ambassador of anti-Semitism. Criminal charges themselves. were brought that resulted in a fine by a Swiss Several Commission members expressed court. A lower chamber of the ECHR ruled that wariness about dealing with unknown, the fine was unjustified under Article 10 of the unaccountable hackers; only a few were willing European Declaration of Human Rights. In its to recognize Wikileaks as a news organization, view, the public interest in the information far for example, and some were emphatic that it outweighed any privacy interest of the was “only” a source. Radu clearly thought that ambassador, and so publication was justified. In concern irrelevant. “You don’t have to trust the addition, the court said, the publication of the hacker,” he said, to take the information he leaks did not harm any obvious government provides and link it to official and public interest in secrecy. databases, in that way unearthing criminal The ECHR’s Grand Chamber then reversed networks. Further, Radu said, the term “hacker” on appeal, saying that the reporter’s stories had is a misnomer; skilled journalists can use legal been incomplete and inaccurate in ways that and commercially available data mining had unfairly depicted the ambassador as anti- technologies to create their own databases. The Semitic and acting in disregard of Swiss national key after that, he said, is linking those databases interests. The Grand Chamber also noted that with other data sets, both publicly available the reporter knew the cables were secret and (such as corporate securities filings, knew they had been obtained and given to him registrations, annual reports, etc.) and privately illegally1. The result, Richter said, is “the only maintained (databases created by journalists ECHR decision that balances free expression working elsewhere in the world). Data with the right to protect state secrets.“ The cases aggregation is the name of the game for serious are rare, Richter said, where the ECHR “bases a investigative reporting, Radu urged. Traditional decision not just on human rights principles or reporting methods are still essential, he said, but hard law sources, but also on the ethical aspects reporters who are unwilling or unable to create of journalistic work, or the decisions of press and work with data will never be able to report councils. This was never the case years ago and with sophistication on transnational corruption. represents a shift. Law and ethics should be Finally, he noted – as did other Commission separate in court decisions, of course, because members – that the obstacles journalists often ethics are not usually matters of law.” The issue encounter when reporting in their own countries going forward, Richter said, is how the ECHR – because of official secrecy, public fear or and lower courts apply the analysis of the Stoll public apathy – might be overcome by decision in future cases. But as Richter said, the partnering with news organizations in neighboring states. 1 There are many legal aspects of the issues Given the discussion at the 2011 Commission the Commission discussed in its 2011 meeting, meeting, the Court’s opinion is worth quoting in part and Andrei Richter, a lawyer and journalism here: “In a world in which the individual is educator now at the Freedom of the Media office confronted with vast quantities of information of the Organization for Security and Cooperation circulated via traditional and electronic media and in Europe, explored some of them in his involving an ever-growing number of players, presentation. In particular, Richter said, the monitoring compliance with journalistic ethics takes European Court of Human Rights has in one on added importance.” At another point the Court, case linked legal immunity for publishing leaks denying Article 10 protection to the stories in with what it perceives as journalists’ ethical question, said such protection applies in circumstances where journalists “are acting in good faith and on accurate factual basis and provide ‘reliable and precise’ information in accordance with the ethics of journalism.” 14 Stoll case is not alone among ECHR decisions But for journalists themselves to talk to imply that Article 10 protection will be limited critically about either is also the mark of a free to coverage that is socially valuable or comports press, one that operates without government with the Court’s view of journalism ethics2. oversight or intrusion and that takes seriously The Commission made one further and thinks independently about the public recommendation based on this discussion: interest. The clear message of the 2011 National and international partnerships Commission meeting was that meeting that and joint investigations should be professional and democratic obligation is more encouraged as they increase the impact of important than ever in a digital world in which so journalism. few information sources bring substantive knowledge, intellectual rigor or professional ethics to the business of news, where the risk of Conclusion error is high and the consequences of error Two other features of the digital world potentially grave. The public interest is much complicate these normative concerns about more than that which interests the public. The newsgathering. The first is legal. When Commission discussion in 2011 was, as it has governments cannot effectively pursue or punish long been, dedicated to making that principle leakers, either because news organizations meaningful in the age of information leaks, don’t know who the leakers are or because they streams and floods. are in another country, governments will be tempted to pursue prosecutions of those who receive and publish the leaks -- journalists. The second is technological. Rather than ask journalists to identify their sources, governments can simply monitor a journalist’s electronic transactions – credit card purchases, internet browsing activity, air travel receipts, telephone calls, emails – to identify a source. In the most high-profile case currently in U.S. courts in which a journalist has claimed a privilege to withhold a source, both of these issues are present. The journalist, a national security reporter for the New York Times, has so far not had to identify his source, and journalists have been pleased that the court has recognized a reporter’s privilege under the U.S. Constitution. But the court has also made it clear that the U.S. government already knows the reporter’s source from its extensive, and presumably legal, monitoring of the reporter’s personal activities, all of them recorded electronically in commercial databases. A second reason for not requiring the reporter to divulge his source, the court said, is that the reporter may yet be prosecuted for crimes under U.S. espionage or computer fraud laws, and compelling his testimony would violate his right not to incriminate himself. The court’s opinion in the case is available here. The relationships between journalists and their sources present to journalists some of their most difficult ethical challenges, and to a free society some of its most difficult legal dilemmas.

2 See, for example, Ivanova v. Bulgaria, a 2008 case in which a French candidate for Deputy Finance Minister sued a newspaper for a story about a previous allegation concerning the candidate’s personal finances. The Court suggested that the journalist should have done an independent investigation of the allegation rather than just report its existence. 15

Recommendations Commission on Media Policy: Central, East and Southeast Europe October 28-29, 2011

1. Leaks are part of the news 5. Journalists who fail to meet cycle, and as such news these professional standards organizations should apply the can create errors that damage a same criteria of public interest news organization’s credibility and news value to leaks. and reputation.

2. Thorough and meticulous 6. National and international verification must precede any partnerships and joint decision to publish a leak. investigations should be encouraged as they increase 3. The leaker’s agenda and the impact of journalism. motive are part of the investigation, and should form 7. Social media increasingly the context for publishing the serve both as sources and as a leak. publishing platform for news and should provide journalists 4. Should journalists decide to with new ways of interacting report anonymous leaks, they with audiences. should explain in as much detail as possible why the source is unidentified.

The Commission on Media Policy

The Commission on Radio and Television Policy was founded in 1990 by former U.S. president Jimmy Carter to encourage democratic media policies and practices. Today, the Commission brings together media practitioners, managers and experts in both the public and private sectors from more than 20 countries in Central, East, Southeast and West Europe and the United States, to discuss and debate alternatives for media policymaking. Ellen Mickiewicz, Director of The DeWitt Wallace Center for Media and Democracy at Duke University, and Erhard Busek, former Vice Chancellor of Austria, director of the European Forum Alpbach, and Special Coordinator for the Stability Pact, co-chair the Commission’s annual meetings. The idea for the Commission was born in the mid-1980s when Dr. Mickiewicz began working with former President Carter on issues of international security and arms control. They discovered that changes in the way the Soviet Union used television signaled an extraordinary departure from past policy. In the fall of 1991, the first official Commission meeting was organized at The Carter Center in Atlanta, Georgia, bringing together media practitioners, experts and policymakers from both the United States and Russia. The Commission adopted a unique format. First, it is preceded by a small planning meeting in which a working group examines an emerging media policy issues and identifies the dilemmas and trade-offs involved in varying policy solutions. These form the agenda for the larger Commission meeting. Second, when the Commission meets, it does so to construct a comprehensive menu of policy options and the trade-offs of each so that participating members can consider a range of alternatives to meet local needs. Third, the Commission formulates recommendations which place the policy options in the context of a freer and more responsible media. They move through difficult and often contentious negotiations, from varying positions, to a set of strong recommendations. Since 1991, the Commission has met annually and made substantive recommendations on a range of policy issues, including the following:  November 1992, Alma Ata, Kazakhstan: Television News Coverage of Minorities  November 1993, The Carter Center, Atlanta, Georgia: Changing Economic Relations Arising from Democratization, Privatization, and New Technologies  September 1994, St. Petersburg, Russia: Broadcaster Autonomy and the State  October 1995, The Carter Center, Atlanta, Georgia: Pluralism in the Electronic Media: The Role of Technology  September 1996, Salzburg, Austria: Principles and Paths for Democratic Media  September 1997, Vienna, Austria: Globalization and Public Broadcasting  October 1998, Vienna, Austria: Television and Political News.  October 1999, Vienna, Austria: Globalization and Political News  November 2000, Vienna, Austria: Bridging Old and New Media  October 2001, Vienna, Austria: Global Media, Expanding Choices, Fragmenting Audiences: Dilemmas for Democracy  October 2002, Vienna, Austria: Crisis and the Press: Balancing Civil Liberty, Press Freedom and Security  October 2003, Vienna, Austria: Media Dilemmas: Covering Ethnic and Other Conflict  November 2004, Vienna, Austria: Media Coverage of Crime Corruption and Economic Development  October 2005, Vienna, Austria: Media Regulation, Censorship, and the Potential for Corruption: Practices Protecting or Controlling the Public  October 2006, Vienna, Austria, The News Abroad: Foreign Conflicts, Foreign Publics, & Foreign Coverage

 October 2007, Vienna, Austria, Time to Change or Stand Fast?  November 2008, Vienna, Austria, Immigrants Who Stayed in ‘Our’ Countries  October 2009, Vienna, Austria, Standards of Evidence  October 2010, Vienna, Austria, News Coverage and Habits of the Mind  October 2011, Vienna, Austria, Leaks, Streams, Floods

Until 1996, the Commission focused on media policy development in the former Soviet Union and a small number of countries in Eastern Europe. Then, in 1997, the DeWitt Wallace Center at Duke University became the Commission’s home and its focus expanded, becoming more regional to include East and West Europe and the United States, as well as the European part of the former Soviet Union. This has provided a far broader range of models with which to consider policies for democracy and media and enables the Commission to include countries in which public-service broadcasting is the preferred model, as well as the United States where commercial broadcasting both preceded and overshadows public broadcasting. One of the most often noted results of the Commission has been its guidebooks. The first of these, Television and Elections, is available in more than a dozen languages. There have been three editions in Russian and two in Ukrainian. The USIA makes it mandatory for some of its training programs. It has been used in the Romanian, West Bank and Bosnian elections. A prominent Lithuanian translated the book into his own language and was subsequently sent to Bosnia to advise on the elections. He found the book's Bosnian translation being used there. The book has influenced parliamentary debate and parts have been written into Russian law. Three additional guidebooks have been published, Television/Radio News and Minorities (Russian, Belarussian, and Lithuanian and forthcoming in Kazakh and Ukrainian); Television, Radio and Privatization (English and Russian); and Television Autonomy and the State (English and Russian). An update of Television and Elections and a compendium volume entitled Democracy on the Air were published in November 1999. In 2010, the Commission was renamed Commission on Media Policy in order to reflect the broadened outlook of the Commission and its work, which had increasingly included an analysis of online media as well as radio and television.

European Forum Alpbach

The European Forum Alpbach is a Vienna-based non-profit organisation whose main activity is an annual interdisciplinary international conference. In the course of two weeks, more than 4,000 participants from over 60 countries come to the Austrian mountain village of Alpbach to discuss current political and economic issues in an informal, yet intellectually demanding atmosphere. In 2012, the Forum’s overarching topic is “Expectations – The Future of the Young”.

Every August since 1945 the “European Forum Alpbach“ has taken place in the Tyrolean mountain village of Alpbach. For almost three weeks Alpbach becomes the “Village of thinkers” or the “Other magic mountain”, as the Forum’s founding father Otto Molden put it. Speakers and participants form all parts of the world, from science, business and politics, renowned experts and students meet in Alpbach to discuss current questions in an interdisciplinary setting. The open character of the event creates an atmosphere of tolerance for other opinions and contributes to finding a consensus beyond national, ideological or disciplinary barriers. In Alpbach, students, heads of state, leading international scholars and the business world meet, relax, and start talking. In 2008, 3,500 participants and more than 600 speakers from 64 nations took part. The programme of the European Forum Alpbach consists of three main pillars:

1. Seminar Week: 14 seminars on different scientific topics are held on six half-days. The seminars are conducted by high-level experts and encourage open discussion.

2. Alpbach Symposia: Conferences lasting two or three days each address current issues in the fields of reform, technology, international politics, economy, building culture and health. Additionally, specialised workshops are offered in the fields of banking, film and EU networking. The “Tyrol Day”, the “Polytechnic Forum” and the “University Forum” present current Austrian research.

3. Alpbach Summer School courses: The Summer School programme offers several one- or two-week courses which provide intensive training in the fields of European Law and Health Care Studies. The courses target students and young graduates.

The conference programme is complemented by a comprehensive cultural programme. This focuses on young artists and covers classical music as well as painting, sculpture as well as jazz, theatre, film, literature and many more.

The participation of a great number of international and Austrian students is made possible by a scholarship programme financed with the support of foundations, enterprises and public institutions. The success of this initiative is illustrated by the participation of more than 500 scholarship holders from different countries every year.

The Alpbach Initiative Groups and Clubs have an extraordinary significance within the scholarship programme. These sister institutions of the European Forum Alpbach which are

run by alumni are active throughout Austria and Europe. Besides raising funds in order to enable new participants from their home universities to go to Alpbach, they form a strong

network which promotes the Alpbach ideas all the year through. The conference is open to all members of the public. The official working languages are English and German. The organisation of the European Forum Alpbach is carried out by a non-profit association of the same name which is located in Vienna and chaired by Erhard Busek. The permanent office in Vienna prepares the annual Forum and organises additional events on political, social and economic questions which take place in different venues in Austria and other European countries throughout the year.