|
|
|
|
Media transparency in Romania - Present problems and possible solutions
Andy C. Pratt
I. Introduction: Defining Transparency
In addressing the issue of transparency in the media, I would like first to define the term as referring to open access to information concerning ownership of companies that produce media products, whether print or audio-visual, as well as the relationships among the players in the media industry. Transparency is necessary within a competitive landscape in order to secure pluralism and democracy. Considering the almost unlimited power of some companies, such as Globo (Brazil) and Televisa (Mexico), one should remember that concentration of media ownership, which is the result of economic forces, is almost inevitable within free-market economies, and it is expanding rapidly. We should not seek to prohibit it, if we are truly democratic, but nor should we shy away from regulating it, particularly at a time when globalisation is the key for understanding today's environment, social and economic, as well as political and cultural. Governments around the globe are watching the struggle for power and influence among transnational companies, with the different special interest groups created around them. The process is moving in the same direction in every nation, irrespective of its size and stage of development. However, different countries are at different crossroads along the same path, and the attitudes of the government within a particular nation are at a corresponding stage of development.
II. Media Development in Romania
In Romania, prior to 1990, intellectuals formed groups around cultural journals and magazines, through which they tried to oppose the regime. The periodicals were, of course, state owned - like almost everything in Romania - but nonetheless, through them some groups challenged the obedient, mainstream press. Radio and television were under more strict control of the Communist Party and therefore more clearly reflected the positions of the state. In fact, in a totalitarian state it is absurd to talk about media concentration and transparency: the media in Romania were entirely and obviously a mechanism controlled by the Communist leaders who owned the country, regardless of the false claim of "popular" ownership. Just after the fall of Communism, the myth of "we are the people, we are the owners" remained in place at some periodicals; privatisation was still a controversial idea and many experienced journalists hid behind the notion of collective property, although they clearly had political and economic motivations. However, by 1990-91, the process of privatisation began, and the public discovered who the true owners really were. Of course, I am referring to the older newspapers and magazines which, regardless of whether or not they have changed their names, continue to be published. The newly created periodicals, and those re-established after decades of forced silence, were, more or less, politically driven: their purported impartially was also a hollow claim. Some were openly devoted to a political party, movement or trend and made no secret of their political allegiances, although they were not officially party publications. Among these are: Dreptatea, Liberalul, România Mare, Politica, Azi, România libera, Cotidianul, Socialistul, Vremea, Totusi iubirea and many others of less importance. By the time private radio and television stations appeared, the climate was already very different in Romania and, more important, legislation pertaining to that industry, the Audio-visual Law, was soon passed. However, before the law was promulgated, a pre-emptive national cartel (UNTELPROM) was formed uniting twelve television stations, among them TVI Timisoara, TVI Oradea, SOTI Bucuresti and Cinemar Baia Mare 1 .
III. Media Regulation in Romania
It is very difficult to discuss the whole of Romanian mass media under the same umbrella, as there is only specific legislation regarding the audio-visual sector. Print media has constantly refused to be regulated by a public body, yet the recent Code of Conduct adopted by some leading newspapers, magazines and press agencies - grouped in the Romanian Press Club - is seen as nothing more than a pious statement. (I will address this further below.)As a result, the National Audio-visual Council has much responsibility in monitoring the media sector over which it has authority, in order to obtain important information, such as the identities of decision makers and the way in which capital is distributed among shareholders, within the broadcasting industry. Under the provisions of the Audio-visual Law, article 6, par. (1):
No public or private, natural or legal person shall be a direct or indirect majority investor or shareholder in more than one audio-visual communication company, and it shall not hold more than twenty per cent of the registered capital in other similar companies.
The only exception-stipulated in the same article (para.3)-pertains to public service radio and television.
IV. Critique of Current Institutional Regulation
The way that the National Audio-visual Council has enforced the provision is less than satisfactory. First, the Romanian authority has only a few inspectors to monitor all broadcasters and often changes, such as changes in shareholders, often go unreported. Even when a company is forced to acknowledge that they have not adhered to Article 6 provisions, this offence is not considered illegal and therefore the provision is essentially ineffective. Second, no measure, to date, has been passed to secure transparency in the audio-visual industry. The reason is a practical one: every time the National Audio-visual Council has raised this issue, a debate erupts both in the parliamentary Committees on culture, arts and mass media and in some media circles. The public debate has not been very favourable to the Council either. One of the clearest recommendations adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in this field, the Recommendation No. R (94)13 on measures to promote media transparency, was not taken into consideration. Consequently, information is not circulated to the public, information that should be requested by the National Audio-visual Council, and which should be publicly available.
V. Recommendation No. R (94)13
The Recommendation suggests three categories of information that should be made public:
It is true that our legislators, who enacted our national law two years before this recommendation was issued, were not aware of the complexity of the problem. Therefore, we should not be unreasonably harsh in our criticisms of the National Audio-visual Council. The Council was also in a difficult position because when they attempted to regulate a problem that was left very unclear in the Parliament, they were criticised for trying to act in place of the Parliament. However, as they did not want to be seen as unreasonably harsh towards the broadcasters, they were accused of maintaining the status quo.
Clearly, amendments need to be made to the law that will secure transparency in the media. There is hope that a global revision of the law will be discussed in the Parliament next year. Perhaps then, a national public register will be established that will include all the necessary information concerning the prevention of unacceptable levels of concentration-horizontal and vertical - and cross-ownership. This is not possible within the present strict confines of the Audio-visual Law. A broader, more detailed law concerning mass media communication in Romania is essential.
VI. Romanian Regulation in an International Context
It must be recognised that the risks of uncontrolled development of information technology in a country still in its democratic infancy are very high. This is also true in more established democracies as demonstrated in Italy with the Forza Italia Party, which emerged from a powerful television company, and in the US, with the recent allegations of monopolisation by Microsoft. At present, the danger of over-powerful transnational companies is not an issue in Romania. In fact, Romania lacks foreign investment: when representatives, from such powerful transnational companies as Time-Warner and Disney, visit Romania, they are received by top-level officials. At some point, however, Romania will have to obey the international treaties, in the light of the European Agreement and of the Marrakech Treaty establishing the World Trade Organisation. Finally, Romania still has not ratified the European Convention on Transfrontier Television. The provisions of the Article 6, para. (2), are very clear:
Information about the broadcaster shall be made available, upon request, by the competent authority of the transmitting Party. Such information shall include, as a minimum, the name or denomination, seat and status of the broadcaster, the name of the legal representative, the composition of the capital, the nature, purpose and mode of financing of the programme service the broadcaster is providing or intends providing.
It seems doubtful that the National Audio-visual Council would be able to provide reliable information when asked - of course, this will only be an issue once Romania ratifies the Convention.
VII. Romanian Media Ownership: Case Studies
Some groups, like the Association of Commercial Television in Europe (ACT), consider that "strict media ownership rules based on the share ownership participation in a company should be abolished" 2 . On the other side, the respectful billionaire financier, George Soros, has a different opinion:
The goal of competitors is to prevail, not to preserve competition in the market. The natural tendency for monopolies and oligopolies to arise needs to be constrained by regulations. 3
Romania, in fact, has almost no respected ownership rules at all. It is ironic that in a country where only one voice was heard for many decades - despite the Communist Party's pretence of pluralism - that legislation regarding such rules is not seen as fundamental. Without such oversight, important social groups that lack economic power, can easily be rendered silent. There are many examples in Romania today of the problematic consequences of unregulated media ownership:
Many other examples could be given, and one should note that a number of Bucharest television stations have local affiliates almost everywhere in the country. Obviously, such a situation is terribly problematic. For example, when the president of the GCP Ltd. Co. was accused of financial irregularities, his main media defender was the Curierul National daily, where his brother is the general manager.
Nobody can maintain perfect neutrality and objectivity. Personal (or, rather, human) relations between individuals in the media will always exist, and one cannot regulate these types of relationships. It is no secret, for instance, that a certain general director of a daily newspaper is the editor of an important talk show produced at the television station run by his son-in-law. Of course, this particular case may not be so dangerous, but the climate as a whole calls for serious attention and debate.
VIII. Convergence and Self-Regulation
In terms of the printed press and its Code of Conduct, in my opinion, it will last at least a decade or even more, up to the moment when this type of document would be appreciated by all the social actors and spectators of the media game. Special laws for print media belie the changing reality of the media environment. As one can read tomorrow's newspaper on a computer today, is it viable to distinguish between print and audio-visual media? Technological development will continue to alter the media landscape, even in Romania. Soon, interactive television, multi-channel satellite and cable packages, DVD on/off line hybrid products and services will be available in Romania. It is astounding to realise that just seven years ago, Romanians did not have pagers, mobile phones, Internet cafés, CD-ROMs, cable television or digital transmission. Who dares predict what the next seven years may bring to Romania, a society that must be prepared to face this new reality? A Code of Conduct is, of course, a positive element, but it is not enough when there are parliamentarians who neither respect the minimal, unwritten code of manners, nor enforce the written legislation.
IX. Conclusion: Pluralism in the Transition to Responsible Commerical Media
Perhaps it is not fashionable in Romania today to have a less than liberal attitude. However, the time to let the "invisible hand" guide the audio-visual environment has not come yet to Romania, particularly due to the limited room for competition. It is necessary to approach the audio-visual reality from the perspective of the principle of regulated pluralism 4 . It is, in my opinion, the best way to build and insure a healthy audio-visual market.
In conclusion, I will summarise my recommendations for achieving such a goal. First, the ratification of the European Convention on Transfrontier Television. Second, the adoption of a new law that would pertain to all areas of mass media communications and that would incorporate Recommendation No. R (94)13 on measures to promote media transparency. Third, the designation of new responsibilities and tasks for a National Audio-visual Council and specific regulations that would be enforced by this Council. Finally, and, perhaps most importantly, regulators need balance and wisdom in all their acts.
End Notes
| Note 1: | Alin Teodorescu, Disguised players waiting in the wings: Romania, in The Development of the Audiovisual Landscape in Central Europe since 1989, London: ULP/John Libbey Media, 1998 (revised edition), pp. 285 - 306, p. 287.Back. |
| Note 2: | The Information Society: A challenge for Europe, Memorandum presented by the Association of Commercial Television in Europe (ACT), Strasbourg: Council of Europe, 1997, p. 5.Back. |
| Note 3: | George Soros, Toward a Global Open Society, in Atlantic Monthly, January, 1998, pp. 20-24, 32, p. 22.Back. |
| Note 4: | J. B. Thomson, The Media and Modernity. A Social Theory of the Media, Cambridge: Polity Press, 1995, apud Hans Mommaas, The politics of culture and world trade, in Trading Culture. GATT, European cultural policies and the transatlantic market, Annemoon van Hemel, Hans Mommaas and Cas Smithuijsen (eds.), Amsterdam: Boekman Foundation, 1996, pp. 11 - 23, p. 23.Back. |