Media Task Force

Speech by Yasha Lange, Executive Secretary of the Media Task Force

Dear Madame Chairmen, Ladies and Gentlemen,

During the next 90 minutes we will discuss things that you all see and read about often-- but may not think about every day.

And we will address several questions:

How does legislation affect the independence and professionalism of the media? How is the news gathered and reported?

How do the media markets in South Eastern Europe function? What can we do to address problems?

Besides listening, you can also watch. You will see some examples of high quality television production, as well as examples of news reporting which may have contributed to the recent violence in Kosovo.

And finally, you are of course invited to join the debate.

But first, I will briefly outline the situation of the media in South Eastern Europe. I will tell you that there are both positive and negative developments. That the media are doing well on the one hand, but quite bad on the other.

Subsequently, I will suggest ways to tackle some persistent problems. Not just by sending money to train more journalists, but by focusing on a couple of key issues.

And finally, I will tell you what the Media Task Force does to address these issues. For instance, supporting the production of television programs, of which I will show you some examples.

First, the Media in South Eastern Europe

I will refrain from ceremonial speeches about the importance of free and professional media for democracy, to fight corruption or change the image of minorities. I will instead look at the overall picture: how are the media really doing?
One the positive side: the variety of media outlets is overwhelming. Every country has dozens of newspapers, magazines, radio stations and television channels. In other words, the public has a choice.

Also positive: the legal framework for the media is slowly improving. Six countries have adopted laws to allow the population – and therefore also journalists – better access to public information. This helps investigative reporting and is clearly a tool against corruption. Several other countries have decriminalized defamation and rationalized the penalties for libel.

Finally, on the positive side, direct censorship by governments has basically disappeared.

One the other, the media are unfortunately still struggling with various problems.

There is a constant complaint about the lack of standards and professional ethics. The abundance of training provided to journalists hasn’t solved this problem.

The reason is simple: training alone could not and cannot resolve underlying – more structural – problems affecting the media in South Eastern Europe.

Yes, there are many outlets. But maybe there are too many, because few are sustainable and genuinely independent. The markets are small, crowded and often distorted - for instance by wealthy business groups which simply want to buy a voice. Don’t think it is simple Darwinism principles at work and the best media will survive.

The position of journalists is weak. Many work without a contract. Salaries are low. Talented people leave the professional. Young staff, have no institutional memory and cannot oppose or generally influence editorial policy. Trade unions for journalists are powerless, with the exception of Croatia.

Little money also means little time to invest in stories, to check facts and to make quality programs. The pressure is high, the need to produce words or minutes is more important than the quality.

And despite less governmental interference, there is still pressure. From owners or paymasters, but also the criminal groups in society. The recent murder of the editor of Dan in Montenegro is a sad reminder of that. Especially on a local level, journalists are regularly harassed.

I said there is progress in media legislation. That’s true, but in the broadcast sector the problems overshadow the progress. It can be summarized in a couple of words: a lack of stability, a lack of independence and a lack of implementation.

I only have to mention the situation in Serbia to remind you how problematic it can be. Yes, a broadcast law was adopted, but the following controversy over the regulatory body – which is supposed to oversee the sector and the licensing process – has basically blocked all progress.

The transformation of former state broadcasters into public broadcasters is a slow and difficult process. There is a need to keep politicians outside the door, make better programs with fewer people at lower costs, and still be dependent on a license fee or state subsidies. It requires stability and time for the directors to do their work, but unfortunately, the management is changed all the time. In the past months, three directors of state channels in three countries were replaced.
To sum up: I was positive on the high variety of media outlets and the many choices available nowadays. But I became gloomier when it came to financial independence, resources, quality, and legislation.

Now the question is of course: what to do?

A lot of support has been provided to the media in the past ten years, and on balance with good results. Independent media were kept alive, associations and training centres were established, laws were drafted and lots and lots of training took place.

But the mission is not yet accomplished. I will single out three things, which are of crucial importance in the coming period:

First, legislation. Of course, good laws don’t necessarily translate into good practice and so much depends on how it is implemented. But lets start with good laws first – laws which guarantee the independence of the public broadcaster and which gives a proper mandate and resources to an independent regulatory body. Laws, which balance well the publics right to know, and the individual’s right for privacy being incorporated within clauses which do not promote gratuitous libel suits. The number of cases pending against journalists are rising rapidly, it is becoming fashionable to sue journalists and the fines can be very high – as we saw recently in Albania where a newspaper was made to pay 20.000 USD after Prime Minister Nano sued the newspaper. In some countries even the truth is no defense in a libel case.

Experience in preparing and adopting legislation shows clearly that it requires cooperation between domestic authorities, the media community and international expertise. We have seen good examples of such cooperation in the past year. Domestic media associations have worked with the authorities to prepare laws, the Council of Europe has assisted with highly valuable expertise to ensure that the drafts were in line with European standards, the European Union has started to monitor the progress or delays in their annual SAP reports. I believe this kind of cooperation needs to be further strengthened to ensure progress.

Secondly, support to quality television production and investigative journalism. As said, most media outlets do not have the time or money for this. This is a shame, really, because there are a lot of advantages. Let’s say, for example, that support would be provided to regional co-productions about corruption, which will be shown on various television channels in the region. This would have the advantage that

After all this talk, I’ll give some examples of television productions, so you can judge for yourself.

Finally, professionalism. This is a difficult issue. In my view, the best course of action is to support the existing domestic organizations, which have proven to be useful in the past years. This could include training centres, or journalists associations. They can provide courses, initiate self-regulation of the media, monitor content, generate debate and stimulate quality control.

Media Task Force

As I announced at the beginning, and as is mentioned on your agenda, I will also outline briefly the work of the Media Task Force.

The MTF coordinates works together with Media Working Groups in nine countries. They provide feedback on priorities and projects. We make a point of that, because we want to involve professionals from the region in determining what to do, how to do it and who to do it with.

The MTF coordinates support and works together on this with ministries of foreign affairs, the Council of Europe and the OSCE. We have close cooperation with the European Commission on the regional CARDS assistance to the Media.

I don’t want to be too long, but statements were issued on media reform, discussions were held with authorities, projects were identified, support activities carried out, studies produced and conferences were organized – all in the framework of the Media Task Force.

I’ll give a couple of examples, to illustrate

In Moldova, the media working group issued statements on the need to decriminalize defamation. The issue was brought up again at a Stability Pact conference in Chisinau. One month ago, the government decriminalized defamation.

In Macedonia, the Media Task Force initiated the drafting of a new broadcast law. Under the auspices of the Media Task Force, support was provided to a local NGO to prepare a first draft in cooperation with all those concerned. The draft was reviewed by experts from the Council of Europe and submitted to the government. Various discussions were held with the ministries involved and the draft is expected to be sent to parliament soon.

In all countries, the working groups suggested activities from organizations, which were prescreened and deserved support.

Over the past years, over 30 projects received support through the Media Task Force. These projects address issues like legislation, television production and association building, and are carried out cost-effectively by domestic organizations with a good track record.

Over 60 hours of television co-productions were made with support through the Media Task Force. As said, you will see some of this later.

In the framework of the Stability Pact, regional conferences were organized on crucial issues such as access to information, broadcast legislation and media ownership concentration.

The Media Task Force maps annually all the assistance provided to the media, to prevent duplication and increase coordination. And every month, it distributes an update on media legislation developments in all SEE countries.
All in all, I think I can safely say that the Media Task Force has firmly integrated local partners, has managed to focus media development onto constructive paths and has ensured better cooperation between all those involved.
That is the positive part. Of course, there are difficulties as well. Let me mention some of the problems we face:
Sometimes the cooperation from the authorities is not as we would have hoped. Put practically, not all media legislation is in line with European standards. The broadcast council in Serbia is still disputed, the law in Macedonia is not yet adopted, discussions continue in Bulgaria, Croatia and Romania.

Another problem, which is quite sexy at the moment, is hate speech. The question is, how to prevent it. Unfortunately, it is not easy.

There is a fine line between promoting media freedom and accepting that irresponsible journalists and editors can sometimes abuse those same freedoms. There are media that do not care much about facts, reputations or privacy.
We do not believe in specific laws for the media to prevent this. We do believe in internal quality control and self-regulation. This, however, is a longer process and will most certainly fail if it is not initiated by the media themselves.
But we will talk about this later, of course.

Finally, one major challenge is to sustain the excellent organizations, which have been built up over the last few years. I refer to the training centres, the media associations and the independent media outlets. It will require a concerted effort to ensure their sustainability.

I have worked with great pleasure with all of you on these issues over the past few years, and I look forward to continue doing so in the future as we all endeavor to support all those activities that help professional and independent media in South Eastern Europe.

Before I turn over to Robert Gillette, the Temporary Media Commissioner in Kosovo, I promised to show you some material from programs, which were produced with support through the Media Task Force.

I have to say: it goes quite quickly, because I wanted to show too much in too little time. So, please accept from me that to appreciate it fully, you have to watch the entire program.

You will see bits and pieces from three different programs.

The first is about the Muslim population in south Serbia. It is what we call a cultural documentary.

The second is about corruption in Albania, from a series of programs made by local television stations. It is meant to reveal irregularities at a local level and although you will not understand what is being said, I hope you understand the power of such programs.

The third one is about people separated by the wars. They re-establish contact by sending each other video messages. The full programs are very emotional, I have to say, but I hope you can already appreciate the short pieces taken from it.
Enjoy it and thank you for your attention.