Capturing Them Softly Soft Censorship and State Capture in Hungarian Media www.wan-ifra.org Capturing Them Softly Soft Censorship and State Capture in Hungarian Media © 2013 WAN-IFRA PUBLISHED BY: WAN-IFRA 96 bis, Rue Beaubourg 75003 Paris, France URL: www.wan-ifra.org WAN-IFRA CEO: Vincent Peyrègne RESEARCHERS: RESEARCH PARTNER HUNGARY: Zsó!a Lehóczki, Attila Mong, Krisztina Nagy, Mérték Media Monitor Szonja Navratil, Gábor Polyák, Ágnes Urbán, Székhely: 1042 Budapest, Árpád út 90-92., Erik Uszkiewicz Hungary URL: http://mertek.eu/ EDITOR: Thomas R. Lansner SUPPORTED BY: Open Society Foundations URL: http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org RESEARCH PARTNERS: Center for International Media Assistance National Endowment for Democracy SPECIAL THANKS TO: 1025 F Street, N.W., 8th Floor Darian Pavli and Mervit Ulvik at Open Society Washington, DC 20004, USA Justice Initiative for providing legal and policy URL: http://cima.ned.org advice; the interviewees and survey participants, and all colleagues who made this research pos- Open Society Justice Initiative sible. 224 West 57th Street New York, New York 10019, USA DESIGN AND PREPRESS: URL: http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org Tereza Cenic, Ivan Cosic, Plain&Hill Serbia Table of Contents Note on Report Research and Methodology .................................. 4 Soft Censorship and State Capture in Hungarian Media ................. 5 Key Findings ................................................................................... 6 Key Recommendations ................................................................... 7 Part One: Overview and Interviews ........................................................ 8 Effects of State Advertising on Market Competition ....................... 9 Selection of Media Sales Agencies ................................................ 10 Distribution of Media Spending .................................................... 11 Effects of State Advertising on Content Quality ........................... 13 Recommendation and Remedies .................................................. 14 Conclusion ................................................................................... 16 Part Two: Background and Supporting Materials .................................. 18 Existence of Rules and Practices Governing State Advertising and State Subsidies to Media ............................ 19 State Media Funding and Subsidies and State Advertising in the Media ..................................................... 24 State-owned Media and Public Media and its Funding and In"uence on the Market .............................................................................. 32 APPENDIX A: General Regulatory Framework ...................................... 43 APPENDIX B: Fidesz’s Media Empire95 ................................................. 44 Endnotes ............................................................................................. 45 Capturing Them Softly Note on Report Research and Methodology “Soft censorship” is a term that covers a which might be promoted or imposed by a variety of actions intended to in!uence variety of non-state actors. media output, short of legal or extra- The report on the existence and extent of legal bans, direct censorship of speci"c soft censorship in Hungary is part of the content, or physical attacks on media Soft Censorship Global Review, an annual outlets or media practitioners. The concept report produced by the World Association of soft censorship as indirect government of Newspapers and News Publishers (WAN- censorship was elaborated in a 2005 paper IFRA) in cooperation with the Center for by the Open Society Justice Initiative, which International Media Assistance (CIMA), described three main forms: abuse of public with the support from the Open Society funds and monopolies; abuse of regulatory Foundations. It was prepared by the Mérték and inspection powers, and; extra-legal Media Monitor based on the methodology pressures.1 developed by WAN-IFRA. The "ndings are A 2009 report by the Center for International based on extensive desk research performed Media Assistance detailed soft censorship in from May through July 2013 and in-depth several countries. 2 interviews conducted in July 2013. This report focuses primarily on "nancial The interviewees remain unnamed; the aspects of of"cial soft censorship: pressures respondents asked con"dentiality because to in!uence news coverage and shape the certain questions related to their present broad media landscape or the output of or previous employment and because their speci"c media outlets or individual journalists frank discussion of contentious issues could through biased, and/or nontransparent expose them to professional dif"culties in allocation or withholding of state/ Hungary’s increasingly fraught media and government media subsidies, advertising, political environment. and similar "nancial instruments. As noted in the text, the dearth of public Soft censorship can cause pervasive self- information and opacity regarding both censorship that restricts reporting while state media spending and media ownership maintaining the appearance of media structures in Hungary has led us to include freedom. Beyond the scope of this report are highly credible anecdotal accounts of the myriad forms of unof"cial indirect censorship operation of soft censorship in Hungary. that can also be posited, including those We hope that other researchers and media rising from cultural, religious or other social freedom advocates will use this report as a norms and traditions, or simple adherence starting point to further explore and expose to the societal narratives that in!uence the expanding and insidious threat soft institutional and individual reporting, and censorship poses to Hungary’s media. 1 The Growing Threat of Soft Censorship Worldwide. Open Society Justice Initiative, December 2005. http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/reports/growing-threat-soft-censorship 2 A 2009 report by the Center for International Media Assistance, on which this report builds, de!ned soft censorship very similarly: “Soft, or indirect, censorship can be de!ned as the practice of in"uencing news coverage by applying !nancial pressure on media companies that are deemed critical of a government or its policies and rewarding media outlets and individual journalists who are seen as friendly to the government.” Soft Censorship: How Governments Around the Globe Use Money to Manipulate the Media. Center for International Media Assistance, January 2009. 4 Soft Censorship and State Capture in Hungarian Media Soft Censorship and State Capture in Hungarian Media Hungary’s independent media today faces Public-service media are also being sub- creeping strangulation. State capture of verted and transformed into government Hungarian media is unfolding slowly but mouthpieces. State media capture is part of surely, principally through the “soft censor- the larger context of an emerging “elite” ship” of "nancial incentives and in!uence of business and political interests that is that affect media outlets’ editorial content increasingly opaque and by many accounts and economic viability. The process has ac- corrupt. The withering of free, independent, celerated under the current government, and pluralistic media denies Hungarians in- which uses state advertising to bolster formation they require to make knowledge- friendly media outlets, mainly those owned able decisions on their country’s politics and by leading businesspeople very close to the policies, and the situation bodes ill for Hun- ruling party. gary’s democracy. Most governmental media assistance funds As recommended below, transparent pro- and other support are allocated on similarly curement for all state advertising and the biased bases at both national and local lev- establishment of an independent body to els. Media outlets critical of government administer and monitor all state funding to policies or supportive of opposition parties’ media could begin to reverse this troubling policies are denied almost all state advertis- trend. Hungary must also ensure that its ing and other support, threatening their laws and practices conform to European laws economic viability and seriously distorting and regulations designed to safeguard the the commercial media market. integrity of public-service media. Country pro!le Hungary Country Data 2012 Population 9.94 million Adult literacy rate 99% Gross national income (GNI) per capita US$ 12,380 Urban/rural population 70 / 30% Mobile subscription penetration (SIM cards) 124% Internet access (households) 72% Corruption perceptions score 55/100 Source: UN, World Bank, ITU, Transparency International 5 5 Capturing Them Softly Key Findings t State capture is slowly but surely enveloping Hungarian media, principally through the “soft censorship” of !nancial incentives and in"uence that affect media otlets’ editorial content and economic viability. t Allocation of state advertising spending is opaque and unfair; it is based on the political leanings of particular media outlets, and this distorts market competition signi!cantly. t Biased advertising spending in"uences editorial policies in an indirect way, creating a newsroom atmosphere in which editors accept and journalists practice self-censorship. t Market competition among media agencies is clearly distorted by the biased award of state contracts. t Legal regulations and !nancial practices of Hungary’s current public-media !nancing permit improper state in"uence over