MediaAcT

Table 1: Democracy index average by region 2011
region 2006 2008 2010 2011
northern America 8.64 8.64 8.63 8.59
western Europe 8.60 8.61 8.45 8.40
latin America & carribean 6.37 6.43 6.37 6.35
Asia & Australasia 5.44 5.58 5.53 5.51
Central and Eastern Europe 5.76 5.67 5.55 5.50
sub-saharan Africa 4.24 4.28 4.23 4.32
Middle East & north Africa 3.53 3.54 3.43 3.62
Total 5.52 5.55 5.46 5.49
Source: Democracy index 2011 http://www.sida.se/Global/
About%20Sida/Så%20arbetar%20vi/EIU_Democracy_Index_Dec2011.pdf
What do these political, economic and social developments
mean for the media? For accountability?
The consolidation of democracy in central and eastern European
member states of the EU is a crucial factor in a context of press
freedom and the development of media systems. Figure 1 shows the
dramatic situation of press freedom in Bulgaria (87th position in
2013) and Hungary (56th position in 2013). The situation in Romania
(42nd position in 2013) is not satisfactory but better than
in the 2000s. Quite negative conditions of the media are noted in
Latvia (39th position in 2013), Slovenia (35th position in 2013) and
Lithuania (33rd position in 2013). Some positive trends are observed
in 2013 in the Czech Republic (16th position), Poland (22nd position),
and Slovakia (23rd position). Estonia (11th in 2013) still has
the highest position in the region. However, its rank is worse than in
comparison to the 3rd position in 2012.
Nowadays, after 24 years of the media system transformation
in ten countries – as members of the EU, we can observe some
common processes and similar features such as political and economic
instrumentalisation. Political instrumentalisation is present
in public media services everywhere. Party logic is observed with a
different intensification in each state of the region. It results in the
processes of public radio and television politicisation; and sometimes
journalism is a political profession. In the case of economic
instrumentalisation, profit is more important than quality, media
logic leads towards commercialisation and tabloidisation. In consequence
media look for scandals and sensation. They prefer a ‘horse
race’ coverage of politics, and escape from the political sphere.
Both instumentalisations are enemies of media accountability in
central and eastern Europe. A commentary-oriented journalism,
a weak journalistic culture and the limited role of the audience
are common features in the region and hinder the development of
MAIs. Hence, we can select four levels of media professionalism
and Media Accountability Instruments (MAIs) implementation in
the region. Estonia and the Czech Republic are leaders in the region,
they have the best position in many rankings (including Democracy
Index, Press Freedom Index). The second consists of Poland
and Slovakia which have eliminated many negative consequences
of instrumentalisation during recent years. Slovenia, Latvia and
Lithuania share some troubles, where the media feel the pressure
from political actors. The worst situation of media accountability
is traditionally observed in Bulgaria, Romania, and – from 2011
– also in Hungary.
Insufficient space for Media Accountability Instruments
The quality of democracy is a very important factor which determines
press freedom. Press freedom stimulates the development
of MAIs. Today we know that there is insufficient space
for MAIs in central and eastern Europe and that significant differences
between the countries might be observed. In general, all
the states, all EU members, introduced most of the traditional
MAIs as journalistic associations, codes of professional conduct,
charters of media ethics, etc. Moreover, many private media accepted
ethical standards, codes of ethics in advertising and public
relations. Unfortunately, traditional MAIs do not function
well or their role is limited as in Poland and Romania. Generally,
in some countries journalistic associations seem to be divided in
line with political ties (Poland and Serbia) and codes of journalistic
conduct have a rather low impact on journalism in practice.
In Estonia, “the collision of the different vision of functions
and implementation of self-regulation have effected two parallel
press councils”. Estonian scholars claim that the crucial issue is
not “the existence” of MAIs but “the efficiency” in their state.
We observe the same problem throughout the region, not only
in Estonia.
Hence, it is still difficult to estimate the impact on new media
and technologies on MAIs in central in eastern Europe. Innovative
MAIs do not exist at all or their influence is perceived as
very weak. Self-regulation in online media has begun to develop
slowly in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, the Czech Republic,
and Slovakia. Romanian scholars underline the role of
blogs, and state that the blogger community is extremely critical
towards journalists. Furthermore, Internet users’ comments on
online news articles in Poland are increasingly visible in practice,
but are rarely dedicated to issues related to media performance.
Overall, MAIs in central and eastern Europe lack research
and publications dedicated to journalism ethics in the digital
age, as well as the role of managers and the public. The international
research project on media accountability can be seen as
an important first step. But the future of Media Accountability
Instruments in central and eastern Europe is still unclear. It is
difficult to predict their future development.
fUrThEr rEAdIng
dobek-Ostrowska, Boguslawa; glowacki, Michal; Jakubowicz,
karol; sükösd, Miklós (2010): comparative Media
systems. European and global perspectives. central
European Univ press, Budapest.
Index | Editorial | Birds-eye view | Opening the toolbox | Zoom-in on the newsroom | Media landscapes