IPI Congress in Warsaw 2004 - International Press Institute

IPI Congress Report

Published by International Press Institute (IPI),
Spiegelgasse 2, A−1010 Vienna, Austria
The texts of speeches included in this publication
were not authorised by their authors. They were
prepared on the basis of electronic recording or
simultaneous translation. The contents of the texts
included in this publication reflect the contents of
the electronic recording or simultaneous translation
of a given speech. The contents may, therefore,
differ from the original speech of a given person.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication
may be reproduced or adapted in any form or
by any means – printing, photographic, electronic
or otherwise – without written permission of the
publisher and authors.
Photos by:
Sławomir Kamiński, Robert Kowalewski, Krzysztof Miller,
Igor Morye, Wojciech Olkuśnik / Agencja Gazeta
Cover page photo by Jerzy Gumowski / Agencja Gazeta
Designed by Aleksandra Poniatowska / AGORA SA
International Press Institute
Chairmen
Jorge E. Fascetto (2002–2004),
Chairman of the Board,
Diario el Día, La Plata, Argentina
Wilfred Kiboro (2004–2006),
Group Chief Executive,
Nation Media Group Ltd., Nairobi, Kenya
Director
Johann P. Fritz
Congress Coordinator and Editor,
IPI Congress Report
Michael Kudlak
Assistant Congress Coordinator
Christiane Klint
Congress Transcripts
Rita Klint
International Press Institute (IPI)
Spiegelgasse 2/29
A−1010 Vienna, Austria
Tel: + 43−1−512 90 11
Fax: + 43−1−512 90 14
E−mail: ipi@freemedia.at
http://www.freemedia.at
Polish Host Committee
Piotr Niemczycki
(IPI Board Member)
Congress Coordinators
Mirela Czopiej
Ryszard Holzer
Paweł Malko
Jerzy Świdrak

5 | Programme
8 | Editorial
10 | Opening Ceremony: Welcome Remarks
13 | Central and Eastern Europe 15 Years After the Fall of Communism
22 | Aleksander Kwaśniewski, President of Poland
29 | Polish Corruption Scandals and the Media as a Watchdog of Democracy
37 | Press Freedom in the Former Soviet Union
47 | The Debate over the Future Borders of Europe
55 | Holding Member States of IGOs to their Press Freedom Commitments
65 | Implementing Good Journalistic Practices
78 | Congress Snapshots
81 | The Manifold Problems of Media Concentration
89 | Globalisation and Transborder Investment by Media Companies
99 | IPI Free Media Pioneer 2004
100 | Gazeta Wyborcza's "Man of the Year" Award
103 | Closing Ceremony
106 | Resolutions

SATURDAY 15 May 2004
Agora Headquarters
Welcome Party
SUNDAY 16 May 2004
Sheraton Hotel & Congress Centre
Opening Ceremony
Welcome Remarks
Piotr Niemczycki,
IPI Polish Host
Committee; Publisher,
Gazeta Wyborcza,
and Vice President
of the Management
Board, Agora SA,
Warsaw
Jorge E. Fascetto,
Chairman of IPI;
Chairman of the Board,
Diario El Día, La Plata,
Argentina
Session 1
Central and Eastern
Europe 15 Years After
the Fall of Communism
Chairperson
and Introduction
Bronisław Geremek,
Politician and Historian;
former Minister
of Foreign Affairs, Poland
Speakers
Sergei Kovalev,
Human Rights Activist
and former
Ombudsman, Russia
Milan Kucan,
former President
of Slovenia
Tadeusz Mazowiecki,
former Prime Minister
of Poland
Jaroslava Moserova,
Senator, Parliament
of the Czech Republic
Laszlo Rajk,
Member of the Board,
Hungarian Public
Television Foundation;
and former Member
of Parliament, Hungary
Introduction
Johann P. Fritz,
Director of IPI
Speaker
Aleksander
Kwaśniewski,
President of Poland
Session 2
Polish Corruption
Scandals and the Media
as a Watchdog of
Democracy
Chairperson
and Introduction
Jerzy Baczyński,
Editor−in−Chief,
Polityka, Warsaw
Panelists
Bogusław Chrabota,
Editor−in−Chief, Polsat,
Warsaw
Jan Skórzyński,
Senior Deputy
Editor−in−Chief,
Rzeczpospolita,
Warsaw
Maciej Sojka,
President of the Board,
TVN, Warsaw
Piotr Stasiński,
Deputy Editor−in−Chief,
Gazeta Wyborcza,
Warsaw
Tomasz Wróblewski,
Editor−in−Chief,
Newsweek Poland,
Warsaw
Session 3
Press Freedom in the
Former Soviet Union
Chairperson
and Introduction
Alexander Pumpianski,
Editor−in−Chief,
Novoye Vremya,
Moscow
Panelists
Ales Ancipienka,
Political Scientist
and Free Speech Activist,
Minsk
Akaki Gogichaishvili,
News Anchor,
"60 Minutes",
Rustavi 2, Tbilisi
Myroslava Gongadze,
Correspondent,
Radio Free Europe,
Ukraine/USA
Azer Hasret,
Chairman, Central Asian
and Southern Caucasian
Freedom of Expression
Network (CASCFEN),
Baku
Raimondas
Sestakauskas,
Managing Director,
TV4, Vilnius
Folklore evening
with dinner
at Jablonna Palace
5

MONDAY 17 May 2004
Sheraton Hotel & Congress Centre
Session 4
The Debate over
the Future Borders
of Europe
Chairperson
and Introduction
Peter Preston,
former Chairman of IPI;
Director,
Guardian Foundation,
London
Panelists
Miguel Ángel Bastenier,
Editor for International
Affairs, El País, Madrid
Jiri Dienstbier,
Chairman, Czech Council
on Foreign Relations;
former Foreign Minister
of the Czech Republic
Cem Duna,
Member of the Board,
Turkish Industrialists'
and Businessmen's
Association (TUSIAD);
former Ambassador
and Permanent Delegate
of Turkey to the
European Union, Istanbul
Janusz Onyszkiewicz,
former Polish Minister
of Defence, Warsaw
Dragos Seuleanu,
President/CEO,
Romanian Radio
Broadcasting Corporation
(ROR), Bucharest
6
Session 5
Holding Member States
of IGOs to their Press
Freedom Commitments
Chairperson
and Introduction
Andrew Puddephatt,
Executive Director,
ARTICLE 19, London
Panelists
Miklos Haraszti,
OSCE Representative
on Freedom of the
Media, Vienna
Raymond Louw,
Editor and Publisher,
Southern Africa Report,
Johannesburg
Paschal Mooney,
General Rapporteur
on the Media,
Parliamentary Assembly,
Council of Europe,
Strasbourg
Henrikas
Yushkiavitshus,
former Assistant
Director−General
for Communication,
Information and
Informatics, UNESCO,
Paris
Session 6
Implementing Good
Journalistic Practices
Chairperson
and Introduction
Hanoch Marmari,
former Editor−in−Chief,
Ha'aretz, Tel Aviv
Keynote Speaker
Frank Ovaitt,
Co−Chairman, Institute
for Public Relations;
Managing Director,
Crossover International,
McLean, VA
Panelists
Mark Damazer,
Deputy Director,
BBC News, London
Andrzej Krajewski,
Director, Press Freedom
Monitoring Centre
(CMWP);
and Vice President,
Polish Journalists'
Association, Warsaw
Tomasz Lis,
former Editor−in−Chief,
Fakty−TVN, Warsaw
Adam Michnik,
Editor−in−Chief,
Gazeta Wyborcza,
Warsaw
Bill Mitchell,
Editor, Poynter Online,
Poynter Institute,
St. Petersburg, FL
Yoshio Murakami,
Advisor/International
Affairs, Asahi Shimbun,
Tokyo
IPI General Assembly
for IPI members only
Dinner at the Warsaw
Institute of Technology
Speaker
Lech Kaczyński,
Mayor of Warsaw

TUESDAY 18 May 2004
Sheraton Hotel & Congress Centre
Session 7
The Manifold Problems
of Media Concentration
Chairperson
and Introduction
Wanda Rapaczyńska,
President, Agora SA,
Warsaw
Panelists
Bruce Brugmann,
Editor and Publisher,
San Francisco Bay
Guardian,
San Francisco, CA
Russell Mills,
Dean, School of Media
and Design, Algonquin
College, Ottawa; former
Publisher, Ottawa Citizen,
Ottawa
Kai von Schilling,
Managing Partner, Roses
Business Consulting;
Member, Supervisory
Board, Mannheimer
Morgen, Mannheim
Beppe Severgnini,
Columnist,
Corriere della Sera,
Milan
Danuta Waniek,
President, National
Broadcasting Council,
Warsaw
Session 8
Globalisation and
Transborder Investment
by Media Companies
Chairperson
and Introduction
Konstanty Gebert,
Journalist, Author
and Media Consultant;
former Vice Chairman,
Media Development Loan
Fund, Warsaw
Panelists
Stig Finslo,
Director, Orkla Media,
Oslo
Ryszard Niemiec,
Editor−in−Chief,
Gazeta Krakowska,
Cracow
Jacques Pilet,
Head, Media
Development,
Ringier AG, Zurich
Martin Simecka,
Editor−in−Chief,
SME, Bratislava
Petr Simunek,
Deputy Editor−in−Chief,
Mladá fronta Dnes,
Prague
Andreas Wiele,
Member of the Board;
President, Magazines
and International Affairs,
Axel Springer AG,
Hamburg
Presentation
of the FREE MEDIA
PIONEER 2004 Award
Awarded to the Central
Asian and Southern
Caucasian Freedom
of Expression Network
(CASCFEN), Baku
Azer Hasret,
Chairman, CASCFEN
Gazeta Wyborcza’s
MAN OF THE YEAR
Award Ceremony
Closing Ceremony
Introduction
Hugo Bütler,
former Chairman of IPI;
Editor−in−Chief, Neue
Zürcher Zeitung, Zurich
Speaker
Marek Belka,
Prime Minister of Poland
Closing Remarks
Adam Boniecki,
Editor−in−Chief,
Tygodnik Powszechny,
Cracow
Presentation of the
IPI World Congress
2005, Kenya
Farewell dinner
at the Royal Castle
Speaker
Lech Wałęsa,
former President
of Poland
7

Michael Kudlak
Congress Coordinator
and Editor,
IPI Congress Report
After the Fall
On 9 November 1989, the Berlin Wall came tumbling
down after the Communist government of
East Germany, faced with mass demonstrations
demanding political reform, was forced to relax travel
restrictions to the West. The tearing down of the
Wall was the culminating point of the sweeping
changes taking place throughout Central and
Eastern Europe in 1989 that eventually resulted in
German reunification, the fall of Communism in the
Soviet-bloc countries and the Soviet Union itself
and, finally, in the end of the Cold War.
Although Mikhail Gorbachev's assumption to
power in 1985 as the leader of the Soviet Union
paved the way for reforms that brought an end to
Communism in Europe, the reform movement really
began in Poland, where crippling strikes at the Lenin
Shipyard in Gdansk in 1980 forced the Communist
regime to recognise the Solidarity trade union led by
Lech Wałęsa. In 1981, Poland's government, under
pressure from Moscow, imposed martial law, arrested
8
most of Solidarity's leaders and banned the independent
trade union, which was forced to go underground.
However, in February 1989, after another
wave of paralysing strikes, the Polish government
entered into Round-table talks between the Communists,
Solidarity and the Church. In August 1989,
after partly free elections, Solidarity formed the first
non-Communist government in the Soviet bloc since
1948.
15 years after these dramatic events and just two
weeks after the accession of Poland–along with nine
other nations, including seven other former Communist
countries – to the European Union (EU), IPI
held its World Congress and 53 rd General Assembly
in Warsaw, Poland.
The decision to hold the event in Poland was in
keeping with IPI's policy of holding timely annual
World Congresses in countries or regions of the
world regarded as political "hot spots" or witnessing
substantial political, economic, and social change.

For example, in 1989, while Gorbachev was pursuing
the reform policies of glasnost (openness) and perestroika
(restructuring) and just months before the
collapse of the Berlin Wall, IPI held its 38 th General
Assembly in the divided German city. In 1994, the
IPI membership gathered in Cape Town, South
Africa, just two months before the country's first
non-racial elections. And in 1996, two and a half
years after the signing of the historic Oslo peace
accords and less than five months after the assassination
of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, IPI met in
Jerusalem for its World Congress and 45 th General
Assembly to evaluate the peace process from both the
Israeli and Palestinian points of view.
In Poland, the World Congress was opened by
President Aleksander Kwaśniewski, who fielded
questions on the recent accession of his country to
the EU and Poland's involvement in Iraq and other
international trouble spots. Referring to recent court
judgments sentencing Polish journalists to jail terms
or suspended sentences for alleged defamation, he
ensured the IPI delegates that he was ready to undertake
every effort to help change all legal provisions in
Poland that allow for such sentences. Other prominent
speakers and panelists during the four-day event
included acting Polish Prime Minister Marek Belka,
former President of Poland Lech Wałęsa; Poland's
first non-Communist prime minister Tadeusz
Mazowiecki; and former Slovenian President Milan
Kucan.
The main theme of the Congress was, of course,
the democratic transition in Central and Eastern
Europe, with an opening session chaired by former
Polish Foreign Minister Bronisław Geremek
analysing the situation in the former Communist
states 15 years after the unique events of 1989. Sessions
on the role of the Polish media as a watchdog
of democracy and press freedom in the former Soviet
Union, respectively, examined the current situation
of the region's independent press. While Poland's
media have become a genuine Fourth Estate, uncovering
numerous corruption scandals despite government
bullying and attempts to curb the media, journalists
in the former Soviet countries face more overt
tactics of controlling the media. Killings and beatings
of journalists have made the profession more
dangerous than ever. In Russia alone, at least 20 journalists
have been killed since 2000, making it the
most dangerous country in Europe in which to practice
journalism.
The second day featured a session on "The
Future Borders of Europe". On 1 May 2004, ten new
members, of which Poland is by far the biggest,
joined the EU, increasing its territory and population
by a third. Bulgaria and Romania will likely follow in
2007. More countries, including Croatia, Turkey and
the countries of the western Balkans, are eager to
join the club. The prominent panelists in this session
discussed the impact of the current enlargement and
debated about the outward limits of the EU.
The session on "Holding Member States of
IGOs to their Press Freedom Commitments", with
the newly-appointed OSCE Representative on Freedom
of the Media, Miklos Haraszti, and the Council
of Europe's Rapporteur on the Media, Paschal
Mooney, among others, sitting on the panel, sought
to understand why so many intergovernmental
organisations, many of which have charters, constitutions
or covenants upholding freedom of the press,
have failed to enforce compliance with this fundamental
principle.
A session on "Implementing Good Journalistic
Practices", in which panelists asked why standards in
the industry have slipped, whether it be editors getting
too close to their sources, executives taking
bribes or reporters making things up, rounded off the
day's events.
On day three, panelists in two related sessions on
professional issues, "The Manifold Problems of
Media Concentration" and "Globalisation and
Transborder Investment by Media Companies",
examined the impact of media concentration and
investment by international media groups on journalistic
quality and pluralism.
This was followed by the presentation of the
2004 IPI Free Media Pioneer Award, which this year
went to the Central Asian and Southern Caucasian
Freedom of Expression Network (CASCFEN), a
Baku-based network of media organisations from
Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and
Uzbekistan. CASCFEN was created in 2001 to better
coordinate press freedom activities in a region that is
known for harsh government restrictions on independent
and pro-opposition media.
The Warsaw congress proved to be a great success,
thanks in large part to the efforts of the Polish
host committee, with over 420 editors, media executives,
leading journalists and their guests from 47
countries in attendance. As in previous years, the IPI
World Congress also provided a valuable meeting
place where delegates could exchange information
and discuss common problems, make new contacts
and meet old friends. Post-Congress tours to Cracow
and Zakopane, among other destinations, provided
more extended opportunities for informal contacts.
In 2005, from 21 to 24 May, the IPI World
Congress will take place in Nairobi, Kenya, where IPI
intends to strengthen its commitment in Africa under
the leadership of its new chairman, Wilfred Kiboro
of the Nairobi-based Nation Media Group. After the
aborted 2003 Congress, cancelled because the U.S.
and British governments issued travel advisories
warning their nationals not to travel to Kenya
because of the threat of "imminent" terrorist attacks
on foreigners, and British Airways, among others,
suspended indefinitely all flights to and from Kenya,
IPI is determined to hold, after 1968 and 1981, its
third World Congress in Nairobi.
9

Piotr Niemczycki
IPI Polish Host Committee;
Publisher,
Gazeta Wyborcza,
and Vice President
of the Management Board,
Agora SA, Warsaw
Deserving
Front Page Coverage
10
SUNDAY 16 May 2004
Welcome Remarks
Piotr Niemczycki,
IPI Polish Host Committee;
Publisher, Gazeta Wyborcza,
and Vice President of the Management Board,
Agora SA, Warsaw
Jorge E. Fascetto,
Chairman of IPI;
Chairman of the Board,
Diario El Día, La Plata,
Argentina
Iwould like to welcome you to Poland; I would like
to welcome you to Europe.
This conference is a sign that free speech and
free media are still hot topics and deserve front page
coverage. We know here in Poland that free speech
and free media are not something given forever and
you have to fight for it every day. During this congress,
we will have the pleasure to listen to many
people who are fighting for free speech and I would
like to thank them for accepting our invitation to participate
as speakers or as panelists.
I would also like to thank all the people who are
supporting this conference. Without them, this would
not have been possible. And first and foremost,
I would like to thank all the Polish media who are
supporting this conference and spreading the idea
of free speech across Poland and showing the
importance of it in building Polish democracy.

The Final Step
Iwould like to say how wonderful it is to be given
the opportunity to welcome you to the Opening
Ceremony of the IPI World Congress and 53rd General Assembly in Warsaw, Poland.
Once again, with its fine sense of timing, the IPI
community has arrived in a country at a moment
of great change. Poland's accession into the European
Union on 1 May is the last step away from a difficult
past.
Indeed, it represents that final step away from
a Communist past, where human rights and the
dignity of individuals were ignored, and a step into
a brighter, happier future, where people have choices
and freedom of the press is observed. That this has
been accomplished so quickly and with such
enthusiasm is a tribute to the people of Poland, who
represent so much of what is good in Eastern Europe.
And in many ways this is the reason why the IPI
community was attracted to Poland in the first place.
We wanted to celebrate the freshness and creativity
of not only Poland's people but also its media. Long
forced to keep many of its opinions to itself, the
Polish media scene is currently thriving. There is
an energy and dynamism in the journalism profession
and I like to think that our conference programme
recognises this vibrancy.
We wanted to celebrate
the freshness and creativity
of not only Poland's people
but also its media. Long forced
to keep many of its opinions
to itself, the Polish media scene
is currently thriving.
With sessions on "Central and Eastern Europe
15 Years After the Fall of Communism", "Polish
Corruption Scandals and the Media as a Watchdog of
Democracy", "Press Freedom in the Former Soviet
Union", and "The Debate Over the Future Borders of
Europe", our conference programme not only looks
at the present and to the future, it seeks to connect the
countries of Eastern European with their past.
Because without a past no country can have a future.
However, I would like to make another important
link between Eastern Europe and a place far
closer to my own home in Argentina. If it can be said
that Communism in Europe was represented by
a wall, then, in my own region, it is represented by an
island – the island of the Republic of Cuba. In so
many ways, Cuba is perhaps the sole remaining
embodiment of that old Communist thinking that
kept so much of Europe, including Poland, in
darkness for so very long.
Last year, over a period of three days, 78 people
were arrested in Cuba, among them 28 journalists.
Their only crime was to sign a petition calling for
political and human rights. As a result of their
so-called "crime", some were accused of "working
with a foreign power to undermine the government"
and given jail sentences ranging from 14 to 27 years in
jail. For signing their names!
As a mark of respect to those imprisoned
journalists, I am going to read their names out:
Raúl Rivero, Jorge Olivera Castillo, Ricardo
González Alfonso, José Luis García Paneque, Omar
Rodríguez Saludes, Pedro Argüelles Morán, Edel José
García, José Gabriel Ramón Castillo, Julio César
Gálvez, Víctor Rolando Arroyo, Manuel Vázquez
Portal, Héctor Maseda Gutiérrez, Oscar Espinosa
Chepe, Adolfo Fernández Saínz, Mario Enrique
Mayo, Fabio Prieto Llorente, Pablo Pacheco Ávila,
Normando Hernández González, Carmelo Díaz
Fernández, Miguel Galván Gutiérrez, Léster Luis
González Pentón, Alejandro González Raga, Juan
Carlos Herrera, José Ubaldo Izquierdo, Mijaíl Barzaga
Lugo, Omar Ruiz Hernández, Iván Hernández
Carrillo and Alfredo Pulido López.
So while Poland is clear evidence that media
environments can improve and we should celebrate
that, I also want you, Ladies and Gentleman, to
remember the example of the Cuban journalists.
Their suffering should not be forgotten. This is why
the International Press Institute exists and it is the
reason why we will continue to fight for press freedom
all over the world.
11
Jorge E. Fascetto
Chairman of IPI;
Chairman of the Board,
Diario El Día, La Plata,
Argentina

SUNDAY 16 May 2004
Central and Eastern Europe 15
Years After
the Fall of Communism
Chairperson
and Introduction
Bronisław Geremek,
Politician and Historian;
former Minister of Foreign Affairs,
Poland
Speakers
Sergei Kovalev,
Human Rights Activist
and former Ombudsman,
Russia
Milan Kucan,
former President of Slovenia
Tadeusz Mazowiecki,
former Prime Minister
of Poland
Jaroslava Moserova,
Senator, Parliament
of the Czech Republic
Laszlo Rajk,
Member of the Board,
Hungarian Public Television Foundation;
and former Member of Parliament,
Hungary
Introduction
Johann P. Fritz,
Director of IPI
Speaker
Aleksander Kwaśniewski,
President of Poland

The Will of Nations
First of all, I would like to express my gratitude to
IPI for having the IPI World Congress in Poland,
but also for providing the opportunity to begin the
discussions with the transition process in Central and
Eastern Europe. It is a historic process that is taking
place in this part of Europe, and it is important to the
world. But it is also important because it gives to us
the opportunity to express our gratitude to the free
press. When we had no freedom, it was the free press
of the world that was our support.
1989 was a historical event, not only because
it marked the end of the Cold War and the division
of Europe, but also because the end of this Cold
War came about not through the operations of
mighty armies but rather through the will of nations.
Societies won this Cold War. The societies, the
nations of Central and Eastern Europe, provided
this example.
What did we want then? We wanted rejection of
the totalitarian system and the totalitarian ideology.
We wanted rejection of Soviet rule and the continued
deprecation of human dignity. We wanted freedom
and democracy, including freedom of opinion and a
free press, to be established. We wanted a market
economy to be established. We wanted the building of
civil society and we wanted a little bit of brotherhood
and solidarity.
And basically we attained everything. What was
this process of transition? A moral revolution, as
Vaclav Havel and Adam Michnik called it? In terms
of the path that this process took and the technology
of change, it certainly was that. There was no use of
violence, there was no spillage of blood, there was no
hate. The Polish process, the emblem of which was
Lech Wałęsa, ensured – through the Round Table discussions
and then the initiation of the process of
change – that this was indeed a peaceful process.
Our aims were to promote the ethical dimension
of politics, to give a different meaning to public life,
to bring into it the notion of the common good as the
fundamental point of reference in politics. One may
say that our road, as we wanted it, was a success, but
that the attainment of the aims and goals was not
always so successful. As for the hard factors – economics,
economic reform, reforming the world of
politics, the state of law – this we attained. In terms of
the soft factors – psychology, the collective memory,
and ideals – here we were not as successful as we
wanted to be.
One might at times have the feeling that it was
not the nostalgia for the old system that caused the
disappointments and discouragement, but rather the
bias of political parties, the egoism of various communities
and elites and the conviction that everything
can be sold and bought. And finally, the problem of
the media in this process. The media played an unusual
role during the fight for freedom. The decades-long
tradition of the Russian samizdat, the underground
publications in all countries of Central Europe – one
may say that the process of transition would have
been impossible without this free media. But perhaps
one should also ask in what way is the media responsible
for the darker side of the transition process.
How much of the responsibility do media carry for
peoples' disappointments or their lack of knowledge
of public life? These are some of the questions facing
our panel.
A New European Identity
The phenomenon of European post-Communism
is something that cannot be limited solely to
Central and Eastern Europe. It is a phenomenon that
concerns Europe as a whole. Focusing solely on those
countries that once belonged to the European political
East would lead to unilateral conclusions. The
Berlin Wall was brought down together by Europe's
East and West. Its pieces crumbled to both sides, also
to the West. Granted, the changes in Central and
Eastern European countries after the fall of Communism
were more radical. However, the fall of the Wall
When we had no freedom, it was
the free press of the world that was
our support.
brought change in the West as well.
After the fall of the Wall, nothing remained the
same in Europe. Europe began developing a new identity.
The Wall was brought down together by the East
and West because of many common interests and
expectations. The differences stemming from a different
position in a bi-polar division of the world and
stemming from different experiences on either side of
the Iron Curtain influence today's considerations of a
modern Europe as well. It is not only an expansion or
reflection of the image of Western Europe to the for-
13
Bronisław Geremek
Politician and Historian;
former Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Poland
Milan Kucan
former President
of Slovenia

mer East. No, it is a completely new image of Europe.
The development of a modern European identity was
not triggered solely by the fall of Communism. It was
influenced also by the globality of our modern world,
its interdependence, opportunities, challenges, and
threats, and also by the unclarities we are facing, particularly
the unclarities in global governance and
global responsibility – responsibility for human kind
and for life on the planet in general.
The search for a new European identity must
answer the question of how Europe itself sees its own
role as being only one of the centres of economic and
political influence in the development of human civilisation
in the global world and how Europe sees its
possibilities and conditions for implementing this
desired role. The fall of the Berlin Wall was a precondition
for Europe to even begin questioning itself and
its own role in a global world, but it was not a sufficient
condition for Europe to find answers about its
potentials; potentials with which it is entering into
relations with others as a single entity.
The issue of identity is of great concern to those
countries which, following the division of Europe
after World War II, became part of the Communist or
socialist world. This division impacted the countries
of Central Europe most; countries which were cut in
half by the Iron Curtain. Thus, Central Europe
ceased to exist as a special spiritual and cultural identity.
Most Central European countries are today
enquiring for the third time in less than a hundred
years about their identity. This happened for the first
time after World War I, when the great European
empires fell apart and the political map of Central
and Eastern Europe was drawn anew. The second
time this happened was after World War II, after the
ideological and political division of Europe drew
these countries into the Eastern bloc. After the fall of
Communism, these countries faced the issue of identity
for the third time.
It is not only an issue of returning back to our
former identity or an automatic taking over of the
identity of Western countries. No, time has brought
changes that cannot be overlooked. We are speaking
of an identity in the present post-bloc Europe. Generalising
change in Central and Eastern Europe after
1989 until the recent integration of eight countries of
the former socialist world into an enlarged European
Union would be very risky. It mainly overlooks the
specifics and the differences which began with the
very manner in which these countries entered the
world of Communism, either by their own will, that is
through revolution, or by force, when Soviet tanks
14
The issue of identity is of great
concern to those countries which,
following the division of Europe after
World War II, became part of the
Communist or socialist world.
liberated them from Hitler's armies. Some saw the
idea of socialism and Communism as the possibility
of a more just society. Others were fed-forced this
idea through weapons. Every one of these countries
has their own history. Every one of these countries
has its own modus operandi of the transition from
real socialism into a post-modern system of political
democracy and market economy.
This recognition is very important because in
most of these countries the break with Communism
also led to strong anti-Sovietism, even an anti-Russian
syndrome, because Russia and Moscow used to be
the symbol of the Soviet Union and the Communist
bloc as a whole. The break with Communism was
understood also as the break with a bloc and hegemony
that was marked by limited sovereignty. The
break with the bloc was the condition for the restitution
of one's own state sovereignty.
However, alongside these differences, there are
also commonalities. Changes in all these countries,
and in the bloc as a whole, came into being because of
increasing social contradictions. The idea of Communism,
adapted to a state and bloc ideology, was not
capable of managing contradictions. Nor were the
state bureaucracies or the secret police and the armies
of these countries capable of doing so. This machinery,
which protected its own interests, resisted
change and opening up to the very end.
Developments in the world did not allow for the
isolation of people into information reserves. The
Helsinki Declaration played a historical role here. But
the fact is that this break came with the activity of
internal factors in these countries. The various civil
society movements, the media, as well reform forces
within the official state and party structures, recognised
the urgency for change and concentrated their
efforts to carry out this change. In this way, the attitude
of the majority broke with the agony and
destructive entropy of the system.
Previous resistances within the Communist bloc
in the 1950s, '60s and '70s show, each in their own specific
way, that success was only possible once the
demands of the public were linked with the reform
forces in the state and party structures. Without the
support of the masses, any resistance ended with
purges, and political and real beheadings. This was
also the case with the fall of the Communism because
of the simultaneity of these events throughout
Europe. Without a Gorbachev, the Berlin Wall would
not have fallen. Without a Jaruzelski, we would not
have had such successful Round Table negotiations in
Poland.
I am not stating in any way that pressure from
the outside was not important, particularly after the
West replaced its position of confrontation with a
policy of cooperation. The West's permanent
demands for respect of the Western standards of
democracy, of human and political rights, and of an
open economy, all of this loosened the bricks in the

ideological and political wall of the Communist
world.
Experience shows that pressure from the outside
cannot break a system. A system can be broken only
by internal contradiction, by social and economic
impotence, by the revolt of the masses and reform
forces, which found great support in outside pressure.
Political freedom, democracy, a market economy, the
return of full sovereignty, national emancipation, an
opening up to the world and the decision to enter
European integration structures is something that
was not a gift from the outside. All of this was
achieved through difficult processes of transition,
which these countries carried out on their own, without
help from the outside. In doing so, membership of
the EU and NATO was a great motivation for these
countries and also recognition that they are equal
with the erstwhile West. It was a bi-lateral, a twosided,
historical interest.
Communism in Central Europe is no more. It is
gone. What is left are memories of Communism,
often in the form of radical anti-Communism. What
we also have is a visible deficit of an influential left in
most of these countries. In order to understand the
situation in Central and Eastern Europe, I think the
following needs to be stressed. Firstly, decades of life
in different worlds left a profound mark in the mental
systems and the behavioural patterns of people. The
mental patterns after the change became mixed up
and they are something between sober consideration
of a new life, opportunity, threats, competition and
solidarity on the one hand, while on the other hand
they are illusions which rapidly transform into disappointment
and even nostalgia. The most important
reasons for this are rapid and intensive processes of
social differentiation and linked to this a narrowing
down of a social prospect. A modern dynamic model
for a social market economy is a solution to prevent
Free and Furious
Iam faced with a troublesome situation, since we
are supposed to be talking about 15 years of history.
Of course, it is not possible to cover all those
years in a very short statement. Apart from that, I
also believe that if we had asked ourselves 15 years
ago if it was possible for Poland to change so much,
we would say a miracle has occurred.
On the other hand, we are very dissatisfied
because of many things and that is also a part of our
reality. The message by Prime Minister Leszek Miller
that was read here today is not a message about a regular
government crisis, it is a message about a major
internal conflict from lagging in development. The
burden of old mentalities and great social differences
can lead to extreme ideas, fundamentalisms of
national colour; it can lead to profound dissatisfaction,
existential problems and to violence because of
the feeling of people that the world is unjust.
Secondly, there are no longer any ideological or
bloc divisions in Europe today, but there is a true
threat that they will be replaced by new divisions. For
instance, a division into a developed and underdeveloped
Europe, which is now acquiring a real basis with
the debate on the concept of a two-tiered Europe, as
it is called. It is worrying that even if we leave aside
the sensitive relations of the EU with Russia, Ukraine
and Belarus, it is possible that all these signs and
omens of possible new divisions and objective differences
are running along the very same line that the
former division between Communist and democratic
Europe used to run. These new divisions also have an
objective basis and if they came into being it would
constitute a real threat for European integration and
development and sooner or later also for European
security and peace.
Let me end on the idea that doing away with the
divisions of the past is in the common interest of all
of Europe. Europe's spiritual territory will be able to
give up the heritage of a divided continent. This is
something that led to rejection in the West, and suspicion
and rejection also by the people on the other
side of the Iron Curtain. There, it led to a lack of selfconfidence
and the non-critical idea that all good
stems from the West and all evil stems from the East.
All of this requires more solidarity than this historical
process has witnessed to date. The former East
and West need a solid sustainable conscience of the
fact that these changes were brought about together
and these changes were brought about for a common
future.
crisis that is taking part in Poland during our deliberations.
Therefore, I do not know what I should speak
about – primarily about the miracle or primarily
about the crisis? I can only repeat what Adam Michnik
wrote recently upon the anniversary of Gazeta
Wyborcza: "We're free and we're furious." These
words reflect our mood. Of course, we appreciate our
freedom, but at the same time we ask ourselves the
urgent question: Have we lost our way? Why did we
not succeed totally and to what extent have we not
succeeded? It is not so easy to answer all these questions.
Nevertheless, I must go back to the beginning
15
Tadeusz Mazowiecki
former Prime Minister
of Poland

of those 15 years, or even before the beginning, and
talk about the role of the media. Poland was then perceived
to be the most free "barrack' – that was the
expression used at that time – and this was the result
of several factors.
On the one hand, we had a very strong Catholic
Church in Poland. We had individual farming. Polish
culture was fully independent and represented by a
part of the Catholic press that was autonomous and
that transferred that independence to the system. In
addition, we had strengthened ties with Western culture.
Later came the period of the underground publications
and finally, together with Solidarity, we saw
the birth of the Solidarity press – first a Solidarity
weekly, of which I had the honour to be the editor,
and then the great phenomenon of the daily Gazeta
Wyborcza. It was a great phenomenon that played an
important role in those 15 years.
I would also like to emphasise the evolutionary
character of the transition in those times. We had no
idea what that evolution would mean. The changes
were peaceful and evolutionary in nature. There was
no violence, no spillage of blood. I dare say that if the
changes in Poland had not been peaceful and evolutionary,
the transition period of the former Communist
nations would have been significantly delayed,
perhaps even by a decade.
The transition of Poland from a one-party state
– where everything was identified with the party from
the top to the very bottom – into a free structure was
quite a natural process and understandable to everybody.
The transition into a market economy was a bit
more difficult, since it appeared that the Polish economy,
despite its deficiencies, could go on functioning
as before. It was not regarded as being completely
uncompetitive or inefficient. A fundamental transformation
was not regarded as necessary.
Apart from that, Polish society was also accustomed
to the fact that there was a certain minimum
level of social security, although there was no development.
Polish society was satisfied with that minimum
level of social security, despite the absence of
development. The costs of transition were immense,
larger than we would have ever expected. Until today,
one of the highest costs of the transition has been
high unemployment, ranging from 18 to 20 per cent.
This is at present the greatest and most difficult social
problem in Poland that has to be tackled.
Another related problem is the phenomenon
known as "corruption cancer", which brings politics
and the economy together in a very negative sense,
and petty corruption, which forces ordinary people to
16
Of course, we appreciate
our freedom, but at the same
time we ask ourselves
the urgent question:
Have we lost our way?
use bribes to get something arranged.
The third extremely difficult problem to tackle is
the fact that, despite the strength, permanence and
inevitability of democratic institutions, the party system,
which had to be totally reshaped, does not function
properly. It operates improperly, because it is
only concerned about party interests and increasingly
neglects the common good. The lack of development
of civic democracy is another problem that we are
facing.
Let me just add a few more words about the
media. There are representatives of the media who do
not like politicians to speak about or criticise the
media. They perceive politicians as entities wanting to
take control of the media. I do not mean to take control
of the media in any sense, but I will allow myself
to say a few words about the media. It is true that the
media, led by Gazeta Wyborcza, have played
an important role in the process of transition. I have
not always been of the same opinion as Gazeta
Wyborcza, but I do appreciate its huge role in
the democratic process and the process of establishing
a civic society in Poland. In the process of shaping the
political culture in Poland, I appreciate its immense
role and I present the expression of my utmost recognition
for that.
However, we should observe what happens in
the relationship between politics and the media. We
are faced with the phenomenon of the "mediatization"
of politics, which consists of politicians having
less and less courage to talk about their convictions
and their activities. On the other hand, they want to
be liked and media favour that trend. They help
politicians to become likeable because the more
eccentric you are, the louder you express your opinions,
the more visible you are in the media.
While the media, both print and electronic, play
an important role in providing transparency in politics
and identifying all the corruption cases, the press
do not always understand their responsibility. They
do not see that they often promote negative phenomena
by providing publicity to those who make the
most noise. I do not know the solution to this issue,
but I would like to ask the question whether the
media are at all aware about it. In Poland, we are facing
a degeneration in the standards of public life.
That is why people are turning away from politicians
and political life. We are facing complete degradation.
You can say anything you want. You can make any
allegation. You can offend anyone you wish and that
is something that our free society is getting used to.
There is a lack of community feeling in a community
that has fought for freedom, that has struggled in the
name of freedom. There is no sense of community
because of huge social differences and the way public
disputes are managed.
To conclude, let me just say that I do not mean
to say it has been a wasted period. Absolutely not. It
is a miracle that we have lived though, but within that

miracle we have seen on the horizon phenomena that
are so dangerous that we must recognise their existence.
The role of the media in facing those phenom-
It is indeed a privilege to have this opportunity to
address you, as I am well aware that the media is
the most influential superpower of today. It is the
press and the audiovisual media that shape public
opinion and that, for better or worse, exert the
strongest influence on societies.
I am happy to say that I come from the Czech
Republic, a country that enjoys freedom of the press,
certainly freedom from interference by politicians,
although I am not so sure of the independence of the
media.
The general public often complains that the
media bring only negative, disturbing news. That is
true, but do we actually wish the bad news to be kept
secret? Certainly not. We had this situation in our
country for four decades. We only heard and read
about the "successes" of our agriculture and industry,
we heard nothing of course about the misdeeds of the
Communist nomenclature, nothing about the
unheard-of privileges the top people enjoyed. Scientific
results showing damage to the environment were
top secret, as were some mass disasters. The extent of
the censorship was almost ridiculous. The list of forbidden
words, such as "truth", "lies", and "darkness",
was endless. Towards the end of the Communist domination,
even news items from the Soviet Union, for
example Mikhail Gorbachev's speeches, were censored.
This situation still prevails in some countries
and it is certainly damaging. But do we only want to
hear and read bad news? Perhaps some balance could
be found; a little ray of light or hope here and there
would be most welcome. But to attain this balance is
up to the media; no outside pressure can be exerted.
It is true, though, that the number of disastrous
incidents worldwide is increasing, especially since
September 11, 2001. Our world changed after that
fateful date, there is no doubt about it, but this must
not lead to our giving up any of our basic democratic
principles. After all, what is the aim of the terrorists?
Is it not the destruction of democracy? Driving a
wedge between cultures? Thus, not only must we try
to eradicate the very roots of terrorism, we must safeguard
our democratic freedoms, human rights and
human dignity with greater vigilance then ever.
Let me now speak about some special tools
UNESCO has to protect the media. There is the
ena is truly immense. As it is the anniversary of Gazeta
Wyborcza, I would like to wish them and all the
media a great success in realising that responsibility.
Safeguarding Human Dignity
International Programme for the Development of
Communications, which supports the development of
free, pluralistic media in regions that have not yet
attained democracy. And then there is another institution,
which very few people know about.
UNESCO's Committee on Conventions and Recommendations,
of which I am a member, is in fact a
human rights committee that deals mostly with cases
of prisoners of conscience. Some of these are writers,
some are scientists, but the majority of the cases
before the Committee are journalists. The Committee
is quite successful and appears to have had better
results than some of the other human rights agencies
that everyone knows about and there are two reasons
for this. One reason is that the Committee can immediately
act and start contacting the governments concerned
without waiting until the so-called "domestic
remedies" are exhausted, for we all know that these
"domestic remedies" are very often on paper only. The
second important reason is that the Committee acts
strictly confidentially. When a prisoner of conscience
is released or prison conditions improve, no one ever
hears of it. You never hear of it and that helps
because the countries in question, totalitarian countries
of the extreme left or extreme right, are more
willing to make a concession if it is not made public.
I am sorry that I cannot talk about specific cases, but
we have had some quite surprising successes in the
recent past.
Towards the end of the Communist
domination, even news items from
the Soviet Union, for example Mikhail
Gorbachev's speeches, were censored.
At this point I should like to make a critical
remark concerning audiovisual entertainment produced
within the Euro-Atlantic sphere, as many of
the films and videos produced in the "democratic
world" can have a very negative effect. What worries
me most is the fact that in many TV films and videos
it is the hero, the role model, who kills and destroys
property left, right and centre in the name of justice.
Such models cannot but exert a negative influence on
the very young. What is even more dangerous, such
films are exported to the Third World and present an
entirely distorted picture of our society. In these pic-
17
Jaroslava Moserova
Senator, Parliament
of the Czech Republic

Sergei Kovalev
Human Rights Activist
and former Ombudsman,
Russia
tures, most men are violent, women are promiscuous,
and nearly everyone resorts to lies. This is not what
our society is like. Yet these films and videos are hungrily
consumed in the Third World. Thus, we cannot
be surprised when some groups in the Third World
reject our perception of human rights and human
dignity, arguing why should they accept the norms
and ideas of a rotten, decadent society?
For this reason I wish, now that Europe is grow-
Iwill speak about the events that have led to the current
situation in Russia. In the summer of 1999,
the current president, Vladimir Putin, was then the
new prime minister of the Russian Federation. His
predecessors were Yevgeny Primakov and Sergei
Stepashin. These were very important persons, who
have one thing in common in their biographies. All
three of them have a secret police past. All three of
them came from the KGB. I do not believe this was a
mere coincidence. There are no such coincidences in
politics. Yesterday, my Polish friends reminded me
that the candidates to replace the aging Boris Yeltsin
as president were also KGB generals, both with the
Border Guards Service. These two generals, Nikolaev
and Borduzha, were not officially announced as possible
successors to Yeltsin, but the fact that they were
contenders again confirms my point. They were clearly
seeking a KGB man and they found one.
Since I am addressing ladies and gentlemen of
the media, I shall propose a very simple psychological
experiment. Let us imagine that there were government
elections in Germany and an ex-Stasi or
Gestapo officer became the new federal chancellor.
Could you imagine a bigger scandal? Now let us go
further with this experiment. Let us imagine that one
of you approaches this new chancellor and asks,
"Your Excellency, what is your opinion about your
past service?," and he says, "I'm proud of it." Just
imagine the outrage among international media and
in political circles. In my country there was no such
outrage or scandal. The fact that our new president,
KGB Lt. Colonel Putin, is proud of his former service
produced no scandal. I think this is really a very
glaring illustration of our current situation in Russia.
Mr. Putin did indeed win the elections, although
18
ing bigger and stronger, the European family will support
good audiovisual films and documentaries,
because they are badly needed. We need programmes
that support the dignity of men and women.
To conclude, may I use my favourite quote,
which I first voiced at the UNESCO General Conference:
"Whoever violates the human dignity of others
destroys his own; whoever elevates the human dignity
of others enhances his own."
A Managed Democracy
Russia is developing into a managed
democracy, with managed media,
and a fully managed or controlled
judiciary.
not without any tampering. Still, I am convinced that
even without any tampering or cheating in the voting,
he nevertheless would have won. Now your humble
servant Mr. Putin is president. I am perceived by
some as an enfant terrible and people ask me why I
complain. Mr. Bush also served with the special
forces, they say. It is important what someone stands
for. What does the new domestic policy of our new
president stand for?
Addressing you during this congress will also be
Alexander Pumpianski, who will tell you specifically
about what is going on in the Russian mass media. I,
in turn, will tell you about an anecdote, namely how
to switch factory production from war production
and from military output to a more peaceful type of
product. Well, we are definitely trying very hard to
convert the guns into typewriters, but whatever we do
they are guns all the same. The evolution of our
domestic policy is illustrated very well by this anecdote.
The political elite or "family", Mr. Yeltsin's
entourage, has finally found its place in the current
administration. The KGB people now surround our
president. I think that this community, not coincidentally,
continues to turn out machine guns instead of
typewriters. And I think more machine guns are in
the making.
Russia is developing into a managed democracy,
with managed media, and a fully managed or controlled
judiciary. These are new features of our political
evolution. If, on top of that, I tell you that the
Upper Chamber of our Parliament is composed of
appointees, while the Lower Chamber is absolutely
exhilarated about any presidential bans, this will give
you a fair picture of the situation in my country.
I fear I will not get to the early days of our political
evolution, but let me just add that it all started
with widespread joy that there would be democracy
all around. People were absolutely and honestly exultant,
and they were only too happy to vote for anyone
who said, "I am an opponent of Communism." Now,
equally exultant, the very same electorate is voting for

KGB representatives, who are successfully leading the
country to a situation where they can fully manage
and control what they dare to call democracy.
So what has happened and do we have any
grounds for even a bit of optimism? Well, I think
the following has happened. In 1989 and 1990,
when the first, not quite perfect, but fairly free
elections were being held, the electorate thought
that democracy is a wonderful thing and that if
you repeat loud and often enough the slogan,
"Freedom, equality, fraternity", then all will be
fine. There will be justice in the country, and sausages
and other products will be in great supply.
For the Soviet people, sausages were a sign of prosperity.
No one explained to the electorate that democracy
is not just the slogan, "Freedom, equality, fraternity",
which in fact brought about the guillotine, but
that democracy is a boring and complex procedure.
At present, we do not have the critical mass of
people who understand that. In our case, the word
"democracy" has become almost a swearword. Those
who spoke about democracy louder than others came
from the old establishment. People perhaps understand
that the Gulags cannot be rebuilt and that censorship
does not have to be restored, but then these
are no longer necessary because censorship has been
replaced in the mass media by various companies who
govern the media, and if a TV channel is critical of
the government, they will shut it down and give it to
someone who supports the government. People from
the old KGB are particularly efficient in this type of
control and management, and this is the path Russia
is taking in its evolution.
Do we have any reasons for optimism? I think
we do. Very slowly, with great difficulty, but with
some success, we are putting together the critical mass
of those who will finally constitute the core of civil
society. While those people will find the going tough
under Putin's rule, I am convinced that this parallel
process of political evolution cannot be stopped.
Reading Between the Lines
We have heard lots of aspects of the role of the
press in the political changes, but they were
mainly political aspects, and I would like to add two
more and provoke you rather than just give an
account of the complexity of these two new aspects.
One is the role of the official or censored media
in the political changes and, two, the role of the cultural
media, or culture, in these changes.
First, to show you that we are not just old veterans
talking about the good old heroic days, I will
share with you an analysis by two of my students of
the samizdat or free press during the time of the Soviet
bloc. They used two words, "parasite" and "virus",
to describe this kind of free press. Do not misunderstand
me, they did not want to compare a free press to
some kind of illness, but rather they were using the
new vocabulary of the computer age to describe the
function of the free press. They used these two words
because they said the samizdat or free press functioned
like the parasite in a computer; the free press
was weakening the power, taking away the energy, of
the ancien régime until it finally died. They developed
this concept because they believed that it was impossible
for us or anyone else to convince the Soviet
regime to step down and therefore something must
have happened to bring about the peaceful transition,
namely a parasite, or free press. The other concept is
much clearer, I think, namely that of the virus that
transforms the system that it infects.
Getting back to the two aspects that I mentioned
at the onset, I think it is not unimportant when the
official media starts to realise that they have to change
as well. If the official media is fast enough and realises
early enough that the system has to be changed, or
the regime overthrown, it can play a very important
role. You can find examples of such roles not only in
Hungary but also around the world. Also, I think it is
important that the official media create a special style,
almost an art, by which I mean reading and writing
between the lines. I think that this is quite important
as a phenomenon in the media, whether it is the printed
press or electronic media.
If the official media is fast enough
and realises early enough that the
system has to be changed, or the
regime overthrown, it can play
a very important role.
The other aspect that I would like to briefly
describe is the cultural aspect of the free press. The
unification or functioning together of the free media
in Central and Eastern Europe was based on civic
will. It was not organised or institutionalised. It was
simply based on civic will, civic courage and a kind of
solidarity. It is really interesting if we examine the different
topics and coincidences of this free press. We
find that in Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland and
even in East Germany, sometimes, topics were raised
at the same time. They were examined and discussed
19
Laszlo Rajk
Member of the Board,
Hungarian Public Television
Foundation; and former
Member of Parliament,
Hungary

in the same manner in each country without gathering
together and discussing the aspects of this examination.
However, the results were mutual and had much
in common. Therefore, it really seems to me that a cultural
unification occurred in Eastern and Central
Europe long before we joined the European Union.
In addition, it is also worth noting that some
important philosophical and cultural questions were
raised much earlier in Eastern and Central Europe
20
than in the Western media. Some of these questions
were still taboo in the Western media when, especially
here in Poland, they were discussed openly in the free
press. Just to mention one example, the Yalta problem
was discussed much earlier in Poland than in the
Western media.
These are the two important aspects that I wanted
to add, not to provoke, but just to call to your
attention.

Johann P. Fritz
Director of IPI
A True Polish Cosmopolitan
Today I have the privilege to present to you Aleksander
Kwaśniewski, the President of the Republic
of Poland, a country which, as we heard this
morning, has successfully handled a peaceful transition
from Communism to democracy and from a centrally-planned
economy to a free market system, and
is now a proud member of the recently expanded
European Union. This group of 25 nations today represents
a powerful single market with 450 million
inhabitants.
But the dynamics of growth are obviously not
yet finished. The political leaders of the EU hope that
by exporting European laws and values, the region of
stability committed to a prosperous, peaceful coexistence
and the rule of law can be expanded.
Bulgaria and Romania are next in line. Croatia
and Macedonia have already applied. Albania, Bosnia,
Serbia, as well as other countries, are also considering
joining. Furthermore, the EU is due to formally
open membership negotiations with Turkey.
But many politicians already claim that the very
logic of unity sets limits on the expansion of the
Union, for the sake of its workability. The Dutch
European Commissioner, Frits Bolkestein, argues
that "the larger the group, the fewer decisions it can
make." Alternative models – such as "more than pure
partnership but less than membership" – are therefore
being proposed.
During this conference we will discuss, among
others, the question where the eventual boundaries of
the European Union could lie.
Over the past, the EU has consistently been built
over the heads of its citizens. However, nowadays
the public debate is particularly influenced by serious
concerns and worries of the people, such as the financial
burden of the expansion, the potential threats to
national labour markets through workers' migration,
22
As for Poland, the political situation
is rather turbulent. However,
there is one symbol of stability in the
political field, and we have the honour
to have him here with us
at the IPI World Congress.
security issues and other problems.
So people look for leaders whom they can trust
and believe. This year is the year of elections. All over
the world, 69 nations will be holding elections and
Europe will face the challenge of elections to the
European Parliament. As for Poland, the political
situation is rather turbulent. However, there is one
symbol of stability in the political field, and we
have the honour to have him here with us at the
IPI World Congress.
Aleksander Kwaśniewski studied transport economics
at Gdansk University from 1973 to1977 and
was active within the student movement up to 1982.
He then entered a brief career in journalism, serving
as editor-in-chief of ITD, a student weekly, from 1981
to 1984, and editor-in-chief of the daily Sztandar
Mlodych from 1984 to 1985. In 1985, he co-founded
Bajtek, the first computer science periodical in
Poland.
A member of the Polish United Workers' Party
from 1977 to 1990, Aleksander Kwaśniewski was
Minister for Youth Affairs from 1985 to 1987, and
Chairman of the government Social-Political Committee
from 1988 to 1989.
He was a participant at the famous Round Table
negotiations, where he co-chaired the task group
for trade union pluralism, together with Tadeusz
Mazowiecki and Romuald Sosnowski.
A co-founder of the Social Democratic Party
of the Republic of Poland in 1990, he was its first
chairman until 1995. In the Sejm, the lower house
of Parliament, he was the leader of the parliamentary
caucus of the Democratic Left Alliance from 1991
to 1995.
As chairman of the Constitutional Committee
of the National Assembly from 1993 to 1995, he was
a co-author of the Constitution draft and a mover of
the referendum campaign for the new Constitution.
In 1995, Aleksander Kwaśniewski won the
presidential elections against Lech Wałęsa and signed
into law the new Constitution on 16 July 1997.
In December 2000, he was elected for a second term.
President Kwaśniewski took an active part in the
efforts to join NATO, which culminated on 26 February
1999 in the ratification of NATO membership
during a joint ceremony with the President of the
Czech Republic, Vaclav Havel.
He also launched a series of initiatives aimed
at rapprochement, for example between Poland
and Germany, between Poland and Ukraine, and
between Poles and Jews.
In consequence, he has been decorated with
the highest orders from around the world.
Ladies and Gentlemen, may I please present
to you President Aleksander Kwaśniewski, a true
Polish cosmopolitan.

The Media and its Role
in the Great Changes
Taking Place
Ladies and Gentlemen, I wish to thank you very
much for your invitation. It is indeed a great
event for us that, only a couple of weeks after Poland
joined the European Union, we have here in Warsaw
the 53rd General Assembly of the International
Press Institute. This event definitely has a symbolic
dimension; symbolic because 15 years ago we here in
Poland began a process of transformation, which
transformed all of Central and Eastern Europe.
1 May 2004 was for us not only a moving day, but
also undoubtedly a historical one. The enlargement
of the European Union, the final elimination of the
Yalta division, our joining the European Union
together with the other countries opens a new chapter
not only in the history of our nations but in the
history of Europe.
If I may briefly comment on what Mr. Johann
Fritz said about the borders of Europe, I wish to
stress that we are convinced that these borders or
boundaries cannot be delineated only geographically.
The door to European structures should remain
open. The countries that meet the standards of
democracy, including standards pertaining to freedom
of the press, countries that go through the difficult,
frequently painful process of democratic transformation,
should also have a clear perspective of
their presence in the European Union. I am referring
here not only to countries like Bulgaria, Romania and
Croatia, but also to countries that have a long way to
go, like Ukraine, Moldova or Belarus. I believe that
they, too, will also be successful.
However, in my intervention I would like
to focus on the media and their role in the great
changes taking place, and to say again that these
changes would not have happened were it not for
independent media. In fact, independent media
were one of the signs of freedom and in many cases
the avant-garde of the young democracy. An eminent
example of the development of independent media,
combining economic success with work for
democracy, is the 15-year-old Gazeta Wyborcza.
Adam Michnik and the others deserve recognition
for their great contribution toward building a modern
Poland. Please believe me that what I am saying
is not a sheer compliment. It is my profound conviction,
which I had the opportunity of expressing
during their 10th anniversary celebrations.
Today it is difficult to believe how modest the
beginnings of their history were; a history profoundly
marked by great personalities, valuable initiatives
and readership attainment. When I speak of Gazeta
Wyborcza, I have in mind all the independent
media outlets that at the time were either being
reborn or created anew. I would add that the
courage and determination of radio and television are
also a requirement for developing and building democracy.
It is a prerequisite for building a market economy
and perhaps it is most essential in creating a civic
society, which, for our countries in transition, remains
the most serious of tasks.
The independent media have also played and are
playing an essential role in European integration and
I wish to underscore the merits of those who
have gone down this road already and to encourage
the media in countries that are still on that road to
follow suit.
Representatives of the media often
become victims of attacks,
pressure and oppression and this is
the dramatic price you pay for your
mission and for the growing
importance of the mass media
in the IT era.
Ladies and Gentlemen, we unquestionably live
in very interesting times. Certainly journalists cannot
complain about a shortage of topics. However, the
problem is that not all of the events – be they domestic
or international – are joyful. On the one hand, we
have growing European security, a community of
nations willing to build a peaceful future together.
However, globally speaking, the beginning of the
21 st Century brings hardly optimistic – if not tragic
– news.
23
Aleksander
Kwaśniewski
President of Poland

Newspapers, television and radio continue
reporting about terrorist attacks, wars, human suffering,
tragedy and injustice in many parts of the world.
Naturally, one cannot really complain about this
because the media are showing the world as it is.
They want to be witnesses of the times and to serve
the cause of truth, and we want to thank them for fulfilling
this mission. Sometimes people in the media
pay the ultimate price for this. As you know, an eminent
Polish journalist, Waldemar Milewicz, was killed
in Iraq a few days ago, murdered by terrorists a few
kilometres outside of Baghdad. Poles felt his loss particularly
strongly, not only because they knew and
appreciated this reporter, but perhaps because foremost
he was performing his great mission of serving
the people. He wanted to be where the danger was,
reporting on the events and risking his life. Representatives
of the media often become victims of attacks,
pressure and oppression and this is the dramatic price
you pay for your mission and for the growing importance
of the mass media in the IT era.
The development of electronic media, particularly
television and the Internet, has reinforced the
media as one of the Four Estates. Objective reporting
of facts, being where the events unfold, reporting on
irregularities, corruption and scandals – these tasks
give the media a watchdog function. In this sense, the
media are part of Montesquieu's pluralist past, where
the various centres of power mutually support and
control each other. However, with growing opportunities
for collecting and processing information, the
responsibility for the quality and impact of this
reporting grows.
The media should first and foremost remain the
forum for expressing the public opinion, where the
force of argument matters, not the argument of force.
Media have a dual nature, both reflecting on public
life and creating it. The selection of information does
affect the views and attitudes of readers, viewers and
listeners. It is worthwhile remembering all of this, but
it also underscores how great the difficulties and
inconsistencies are with which the world's media have
to grapple.
Over the last 15 years we have witnessed a huge
market of diverse publications, radio and TV arising
and with that came attempts by many authorities to
subjugate them. Fortunately, most of these attempts
were unsuccessful and the spirit of democracy rings
victorious. The media have shown that they are
strong, professional, and resistant to pressure. Importantly,
in many cases they went on the offensive and
were instrumental in discovering and highlighting
24
I am against any attempts to
manipulate a journalist or the media.
I think it would constitute a great
threat to democracy and would
undermine the open public discourse.
many negative situations in public life.
But I also wish to note some dangers, maybe
some criticism, about the media. The fact that the
Fourth Estate has gained such an important position
does not mean that it is free from any disadvantages,
or that it does not commit any errors. Controversial
issues, including the impartiality and responsibility
of the media, the ethical standards of journalists'
work, the process of tabloidization, have raised our
concerns.
We are also under the impression that in Europe
and in Poland the opportunities available to a citizen
who is criticised by the media are not equal to the
power of the media and their impact. All legal solutions
that exist are largely unfavourable for the citizen.
Devastation by the media can proceed very fast,
while defending a citizen, using the rights that a person
is entitled to, lasts for many, long years in the current
legal system. If you write a dishonest, unfair article,
it does not cost a lot, but if you want to defend
your name it will be a long-term and costly process.
That is one of the elements that contribute to the
inequality that has arisen also here in Poland. I wonder
how we can get out of this situation.
In brief, I would like to express my conviction
that solving these problems, the problems of weaknesses
in journalism, should result from the journalists'
environment itself. I am against any attempts
to manipulate a journalist or the media. I think it
would constitute a great threat to democracy and
would undermine the open public discourse. However,
if we want the mass media to be close to the society,
if we do not want them to be transformed into
closed, isolated systems, we need to appeal for a wise,
self-controlling measure within the journalists'
environment. If we reject external control, we in turn
are entitled to expect that the journalists will try
to regulate themselves and will not always show
solidarity towards any criticism addressed at other
journalists. I know that it is very difficult, but if we
want to improve our public life, if we are appealing
for a higher quality in politicians, democratic institutions,
state institutions, this appeal should also apply
to journalists and to those journalistic organisations
that guard the ethics and high quality of professional
journalism.
Recently in Poland we have seen examples that
have prompted lots of discussion. I think discussions
should be continued. The discussion was about how
far you can go in trying to reach commercial success
without giving up your ethical standards. As you may
know, one of our newspapers decided to publish photographs
picturing a murdered Polish journalist.
It seems that the debate that started on that day
should be maintained because it is a question that
journalists will have to answer. To what extent does
commercial success justify the rejection of ethical
standards? Journalists who are participating in the
market game of communicating information remain

the co-founders of the civic society that needs free
and fair speech as the essential foundation. The quality
of democracy, not only in Poland, will be determined
by the level of the public debate. The fewer
manipulations there are, the less empty rhetoric, the
more respect for our adversaries, the more opportunities
we will have to build a society that will be well
informed and ready to formulate its own judgments
and opinions.
I would like it to be that way and I am saying
this not only as a politician but also as an ex-journalist
and editor-in-chief. I am saying this as a member
of the audience, someone who views TV and reads
the press. We need such information, and apart from
Questions & Answers
Q: Johann P. Fritz
Mr. President, the next session will be about
the Polish media as a watchdog of democracy, but
it is unfortunately true that we have had recent court
judgments, which sentenced Polish journalists to
jail terms or suspended sentences for alleged defamation.
There are about two dozen cases pending.
There is a general belief among the media community
that prison terms for dissemination
of news and information, or for the expression
of opinion, are never justified. Those views are
shared by leading courts, such as the European
Court of Human Rights, the Inter-American Human
Rights Commission, or the U.S. Supreme
Court. The clear trend in their decision-making
is that defamation, libel and slander should be treated
as civil offences, to be settled between the parties
by civil courts, and not as criminal offences subject
to state punishment. Mr. President, it would be
unfair not to mention that we are going to seek
tomorrow afternoon during the IPI General Assembly
a resolution which appeals to the authorities
and political institutions of your country to make
the necessary legal changes. We hope that you, as
a moral authority, will render support for such an
initiative.
A: Aleksander Kwaśniewski
I can promise you that I am ready to change
everything in the Polish legal system that is wrong,
because in my opinion the responsibility of journalists
is necessary, but prison sentences are the
absolutely wrong approach. We will think how
to change it and in my opinion this change is quite
possible very soon.
the scandals that must be identified and later criticised,
we also need to see what we are successful in.
We need to see good examples as an incentive,
because we are not living in a world of totally degraded
people. Fortunately enough, there are lots of fair
and just people around us.
Ladies and gentlemen, I believe that the free
media in Poland, although young, have already
passed their maturity exam and together with the
increase of their importance their responsibility will
also grow. The responsibility for truth, for the state,
and for its citizens. I am convinced the media in
Poland and around the world will take up that challenge
and will try to fulfil it.
Q: Ferai Tinc, Columnist, Hürriyet, Turkey
Mr. President, you said, while talking about the
borders of Europe, that European values, not geography,
will determine the future boundaries of Europe.
The European process has been a very good impetus
for our own democratisation process. I would like to
have your comments on this issue, because it was also
Poland that proposed a reference to religion during
the drafting of the European Constitution.
A: Aleksander Kwaśniewski
First, I am very glad that we have just started
negotiations with Turkey and in my opinion this
is a real challenge for both Turkey and Europe.
Membership of Turkey in Europe is a real challenge,
because of geography, because of history, because
of religion. If you ask about Poland's position, we
are very much in favour. We will support this process,
but it is a real challenge. With regard to the Con-
25

stitutional Treaty, yes, we are fighting for such a sentence
in the preamble, because in my opinion to speak
about Europe and European history without mentioning
Christian traditions is a mistake. We expect
and need to have a sentence in which we speak
about European values connected with Christian
tradition.
Q: Anders Wettergren, Senior Columnist, Dagens Nyheter, Sweden
Mr. President, you have just entered a Union
where most countries have decided to use special transition
rules for labour forces. Is this a serious problem
for Poland, or do you look at it as being more symbolic?
A: Aleksander Kwaśniewski
I think all these questions related to the labour
market are exaggerated. A free labour market is one
26
of the fundamentals of European integration.
Of course, I understand the fears; I understand
the situation in Germany. But I do not think the problem
of Polish workers coming to Europe is so serious.
First, because the Polish economy is in good shape.
We have a growth rate of six per cent, a Chinese level
of growth, and we will create jobs here. Second,
I think good specialists will find an interesting market
for well-paid jobs here in Poland. A serious question
for all of us in Europe, including Poland, is the problem
of aging societies. Today, Poland has a population
of almost 40 million, but over the next 30 years
the population will decrease, which means that we
will have to open our doors to immigrants, first from
Eastern European countries, and then from around
the world, and that is a new phenomenon. I think
Poles are still not prepared psychologically for this
new situation.

SUNDAY 16 May 2004
Polish Corruption Scandals
and the Media as a Watchdog
of Democracy
Chairperson and Introduction
Jerzy Baczyński,
Editor-in-Chief, Polityka,
Warsaw
Panelists
Bogusław Chrabota,
Editor-in-Chief, Polsat,
Warsaw
Jan Skórzyński,
Senior Deputy Editor-in-Chief,
Rzeczpospolita, Warsaw
Maciej Sojka,
President of the Board, TVN,
Warsaw
Piotr Stasiński,
Deputy Editor-in-Chief, Gazeta Wyborcza,
Warsaw
Tomasz Wróblewski,
Editor-in-Chief, Newsweek Poland,
Warsaw

The Dark Side of the Moon
Let me just say at the outset that in my view
Poland is not a particularly corrupt country. I
am sure we do not stray too far from internationally
accepted standards, and there are no real signs of
danger to democracy. On the other hand, our surveys
show that corruption, along with unemployment,
ranks as the biggest domestic problem. This phenomenon
was created by the media. But here is the question:
Did we create it, or simply reveal it? And there is
another question. Have we not hurt democracy
through our commitment to act as watchdogs? Have
we not supplied our populists with ammunition?
Of course, it is true that the Polish media
defended its independence, showed its power. In the
words of Prime Minister Leszek Miller, it was the
media that overthrew the government and ruined the
image of the governing coalition. We have been successful
no doubt, but is it real? We like to look at the
bright side of the moon, but there is also a dark side.
While support for the government was dropping and
scandals were revealed one after another, a populist
and demagogic party known as Samoobrona (Self
Defence), founded by Andrzej Lepper, was growing.
It is some kind of mental and emotional return to the
splendid times of Communist rule. The Samoobrona
party has 25 to 30 per cent of public support now and
may win if there is an early election. Is it not true that
we ourselves created the monster? Have we not paved
the way for those who are far more dangerous than
the arrogant politicians who have just been forced
out? Do we make democracy stronger or weaker?
Rywingate Revisited
Ihad the immense lack of pleasure in participating
to some extent in the so-called "Rywingate" scandal,
a trauma that our newspaper has had to live
through. It has been a very difficult and odd sitution.
Rywingate is the mother of all scandals in Poland.
That is because the story, disclosed by Gazeta Wyborcza,
spurred a whole new sense of energy in the
Polish media. After that affair, they took a closer,
scrutinizing look at the authorities, in this case the
post-Communist government.
The trauma that I mentioned in relation to the
story is as follows. After the story was disclosed, we
faced numerous attacks from sides we had never
expected, particularly from other media. Attacks
from politicians who themselves felt attacked are not
worth mentioning. The main reason for what hap-
Obviously, I know how I would answer this question.
The media cannot accept the corrupt behaviour of
any politician. It would be contradictory to our mission.
The CEO of the largest Polish company,
ORLEN, a manufacturer and distributor of fuels, has
complained in public that the fear of being accused of
corruption has paralysed the administration and that
officials prefer not to make any decisions nowadays.
So, being proud of our role as the Fourth Estate, do
we not usurp the right to be at the same time private
investigator, public prosecutor, or judge? Especially
since attacking politicians is a relatively safe sport,
because people in general do not like them.
We like to look at the bright side
of the moon, but there is also
a dark side.
The media in Poland, and I wonder if the same
goes for other countries, are mostly in opposition to
every authority and very quickly link every evil with
the present government. And this leads straight to
generalisations that certainly undermine the state's
authority and strengthens the belief that we are governed
by idiots. Is this a favour to democracy, or not?
Are we sure we are responsible media, that our investigative
journalism is honest and pure? How often are
we manipulated and a participant in someone else's
game? I wish I could hear that everything is all right,
but is it really?
pened to Gazeta Wyborcza after Rywingate was
revealed in December 2002 was that Lew Rywin
approached Agora, our publisher, and Adam Michnik,
our editor-in-chief, to extort a bribe in July of
that year, and the story was only printed by us some
five months later. That was a main reason for all
kinds of allegations that we heard.
We basically used two types of defensive arguments.
First of all, we said that the fact Lew Rywin
came to Gazeta Wyborcza and was taped by Adam
Michnik was very solid proof that we were dealing
with an attempt at corruption of great and unprecedented
proportions. Rywin referred to the prime minister
and the ruling party and it was allegedly on their
behalf that he was trying to obtain a bribe from
Gazeta Wyborcza. Therefore, we had to be as sure -
29
Jerzy Baczyński
Editor−in−Chief, Polityka,
Warsaw
Piotr Stasiński
Deputy Editor−in−Chief,
Gazeta Wyborcza,
Warsaw

Jan Skórzyński
Senior Deputy Editor−in−Chief,
Rzeczpospolita, Warsaw
not as sure as a tribunal, or a prosecutor or even a
policeman, but as sure as a journalist can be – that
what Rywin referred to was more or less probable. He
referred to something that later entered the Polish
language as a newly coined expression, "a group of
people in power." He mentioned Prime Minister
Leszek Miller's name.
Adam Michnik and our colleagues strived to
perform a journalistic investigation using a method
that seemed obvious to him. He wanted to tell everyone
about the issue and he wanted others to associate
what he was talking about with something else they
might know or have heard. He wanted them to
remember something else and in that way he was hoping
to find the traces of those who authorised Rywin
to act. Adam Michnik failed completely in his action.
It turned out that something that could have been
efficient in other times was not this time. Either the
group holding power conspired tightly together, or
they acted in such an oddly uncoordinated way that,
on the one hand, they were trying to introduce a law
blocking Agora, Gazeta's publisher, from entering the
electronic media field and, on the other hand, were
asking us for a bribe. In any case, it was a failed investigation.
The second mistake was that we were afraid that
by disclosing Rywingate, Poland's image, especially in
Europe, would become that of a country that is totally
corrupt, and where corruption is to be found at the
highest levels of authority. Actually, we were not
wrong in this respect. When it was finally revealed,
Rywingate was so widely publicised that it was clear
our fears had not been exaggerated. Our fears were
based on the fact that Poland was in the final stages
of its negotiations to join the European Union. We
were concerned and we felt responsible. Our intentions
were good, but our critics did not understand
them in a positive manner. I must say today that it
30
was a mistake not to publish the story for several
months.
I think we totally underappreciated one important
fact that invalidated our two arguments, namely
we did not appreciate that from the very beginning we
were part of the scandal. We were not an observer
that could look at it from a distance. We were not a
daily newspaper that could just send its investigative
journalists to research an irregularity, or a crime related
to business or the authorities. We were part of the
whole conflict in the sense that it was us whom Rywin
approached in order to obtain a bribe on behalf of
the ruling party. We were present in the market as a
media company. We were in a way entangled in the
normal market situation, which made us have a significant
interest in the market. We told our shareholders
that we would grow as a media company and
that we would expand to cover television. Everything
was strictly related to our vital interests.
So what should a daily newspaper publish if it is
a part of – some even said a party to – this problem?
Our doubts and hesitations came from that dilemma
to a large extent. That is why we felt traumatised. We
did not know how to approach the issue. We did not
know how to honestly disclose it. It seemed to us that
we were in a completely unprecedented situation and
that we were learning from our own mistakes. We
were in bind, because we had to disclose it but we also
had to disclose that we were part of the story.
That is why some critics, and part of the public, identified
Agora, our publisher, and Gazeta Wyborcza as
part of the establishment, as people and a company
who were entangled in the scandal, despite the fact
that it was us who disclosed the scandal. That criticism
seemed utterly unjust to us, but I must admit
that because of the error we made it can be understood.
Today I deeply regret we were not able to face
that precedent in a better way than we did.
The Extent of Corruption
Rzeczpospolita was one of the dailies that
analysed all the circumstances of Rywingate
from the perspective of professional standards, all the
circumstances of disclosing the scandal involving Mr.
Rywin. I would like to stress that the decision that
Gazeta Wyborcza finally took, the decision to disclose
the scandal, was one of the breakthrough decisions
in Polish democracy, and I think we owe a lot of
thanks and respect to Adam Michnik and all his colleagues
from Gazeta Wyborcza. Even more so since
they paid a very high price, much higher than they
ever expected, but Polish democracy and Polish pub-
lic life did benefit from it. It did so because other
media followed up on this topic, followed up on the
conduct of the authorities.
In recent years, Polish dailies and other media
have managed to disclose numerous scandals on a
very large scale. Of course, you can ask yourself the
question whether it would not be better for Polish
public life if there were fewer scandals, but you cannot
blame the journalists for such a high number of
scandals. Unfortunately, there is still a lot to write
about.
Let me just mention two other scandals that

were disclosed by the media. One of them is about
foreign medicine imported to Poland and the corruption
related to that. It ended with a resignation by the
Minister of Health and his closest collaborator. The
second major affair of last year concerned the activities
of a criminal gang within the party structures of
the ruling party in one of the smaller towns of
Poland. It is called the Starachowice scandal, named
after the town, and it ended with the resignation of
the Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs and a court
case where that Deputy Minister and two MPs from
the ruling party had to face allegations in court.
I do agree with the chairman that the flood of
scandals disclosed by the media may at one point in
time end in a certain indifference on the part of society.
It is clear that we, as editors of magazines, dailies
or TV stations, must take care to clearly distinguish
between the scandals that are worth a lot of publicity
and discussion and those that we are tempted to
exaggerate in order to win at least temporarily over
our competitors. However, generally speaking, I think
that what we have learned about our country in the
last two years was worth the price we had to pay; was
worth showing all the dirty laundry in public.
What did we find out? We learned that, most
probably, in Poland you can buy a law in parliament
for money. We learned that in Poland major decisions
on economic affairs and investment are often taken in
a way that violates the Constitution. They are taken
by people who are not authorised to do so. We also
learned that the ties between politics and business in
Poland are ultimately harmful both for politics and
business.
We also found out more about the extent of cor-
Filling a Niche
Iwill give you some data on the scale of corruption
in Poland. Since the 1990s, we have had Transparency
International here in Poland. That institution
publishes every year a rating of corruption. It is
more or less impartial information on how different
countries are perceived in the context of corruption.
At the beginning of this century, in 2001, out of 99
countries on the list, Poland occupied position number
44. However, in 2003, out of 140 countries
analysed, it occupied position 63, which shows that it
is quite far away from the leading countries. Of
course, the higher up the list you are the more transparent
you are, and the less chance there is for corruption.
The leading countries are almost always
Denmark and Finland. In their case, the coefficient is
9.6 to 10 points. However, in Poland, in 1996, that
ruption in Poland. We heard it mentioned here and
there, but it was not until we saw the shocking example
of trying to bribe Adam Michnik that we realised
that corruption was so widespread in Poland.
I would like to stress that
the decision that Gazeta Wyborcza
finally took, the decision to disclose
the scandal, was one of the
breakthrough decisions in Polish
democracy, and I think we owe
a lot of thanks and respect
to Adam Michnik and all his
colleagues from Gazeta Wyborcza.
Another consequence and, in my opinion a very
positive one, is the fostering of the public's interest in
public issues. The most significant example of that
was the large audiences viewing the TV broadcasts of
the sessions of the special parliamentary committee
appointed to investigate the Rywin case.
Rywingate and other scandals also led us to
change the management of public television in
Poland, which means that the most powerful medium
in the country has gained its chance to become independent.
It also means that the most shocking defect
of the system has died, namely the subordination of
public TV to the ruling party.
Finally, when talking about positive consequences,
I must also mention the strengthening of the
social role of the media and journalists. I do not think
that we have ever enjoyed such a high status in Polish
society and I think we have all worked very hard
toward gaining this status.
coefficient was 5.6. Today, after 8 years, it is 3.6,
which is two points less. This is how the world perceives
us. I would say that in this part of Europe, we
are perceived to be the leader in corruption conduct.
In a way, this is a consequence of journalistic
activity, because the more publications there are
about corruption, the deeper and wider the conviction
that corruption is a major problem in Poland.
Paradoxically, therefore, if we ask how much and
what we should publish on corruption, we risk the
answer that it is better not to publish anything at all.
Then our image will be much better. Of course, such
a conclusion leads us to a discussion about the paradoxes
of logic.
Going back to Transparency International, that
institution systematises corruption cases, defines
31
Bogusław Chrabota
Editor−in−Chief, Polsat,
Warsaw

them and catalogues them in great detail. In Poland,
within one year, from October 2000 until October
2001, a very precise corruption mark was established.
It was the systematic description of institutions,
regions or the subject matter of corruption cases.
Based mainly on press monitoring, there were 480
such cases. Now what conclusion can be drawn from
it? Namely that a phenomenon that was quite
abstract was measured. Corruption is a measurable
phenomenon. I need not stress that the Transparency
International statistics are mainly the outcome of
press monitoring. This speaks most for the effectiveness
and necessity of raising and publishing cases of
corruption.
One might ask if Poland is a particularly corrupt
country or particularly exposed to corruption?
Facts speak for themselves. Comments are always
biased. However, we can say that there are a number
of public situations in Poland that create a climate
supporting corruption. Until recently, it was said that
it was a question of the longish process of transformation,
but this has been going on for 14 years now.
The question now is whether this has become too
much of a permanent feature of the system in
Poland.
What are the causes? Well, first of all little rotation
among the political elite; insufficient civic education
of the people going into politics, the poverty and
hunger, if you like, of the people in politics; the
supremacy of the tradition of centralism in public
administration; a common grey area of interests
between business and politics; a too strong administration
and an overall weakness of the Polish legal
system.
Facing this encumbered state, we have a strong,
vibrant and ambitious media, which fill a niche. They
fill in for the inefficiency of the state. Transparency
should be part of the institutional system of public
institutions. There is no such system. Therefore, this
is an excellent area for the media to step in. However,
let me say this once again, this is but a stand-in role.
Therefore, in my understanding at least, there is a
need to look very carefully at people who occupy eminent
positions in the country disclosing cases of corruption.
There is a three-pronged approach to this. Firstly,
the information role, reporting the news. Secondly,
disclosing such cases, giving everyone the opportunity
to speak about it. Finally, an educational role,
deriving a message for the future from a news item.
For this critique to be constructive, the question may
be asked whether the Polish press is performing these
functions and meeting these needs? Many professionals
say no. With regard to news, we are very strong.
We are not as good, however, with the presentation
function, and the worst is the educational function.
We raise an issue, we present it, but rarely ever are
32
proper conclusions drawn. I should add at this point
that this was until the Rywin case, because this was
really a public revolution in Poland, when this situation
led to a number of actions that hopefully will
change the state.
Who is best performing these jobs in Poland?
The printed press. TV is a second-line medium,
although increasingly often the electronic media and
the printed press work together in a coalition of sorts
to disclose evil. Though naturally TV is there more to
make knowledge about such events public.
Are the media well equipped with instruments?
This is a valid question and this has to do with the
longish transformation period. According to eminent
lawyers, the law in Poland is not bad. We have the formal
instruments, both the Constitution, which explicitly
speaks about access to public information, as well
as the Polish press law and such new regulations as
the Act on Access to Public Information of 2002.
These provide the instruments, provide the opportunities.
However, according to lawyers and those who
watch the media and observe them, practice is ailing.
Apart from the elite of investigative reporters, many
of those who seek out corruption scandals have
absolutely no awareness of the legal instruments, of
legal institutions and procedures. They are groping in
the dark, naturally making a lot of mistakes along the
way.
Hardly any journalists know, for instance, that
there is in Poland the so-called Public Information
Bulletin, where very important information can be
found that is essential to reporting on corruption.
Without this information, journalists resort to other,
sometimes even illegal, methods. Increasingly frequent
is the practice where a publisher announces
that he will buy confidential information. Not only is
this dishonest, but it also stimulates criminality
because it promotes illegal behaviour to obtain information
from what is in fact a corrupt state. I therefore
think that within the next years professional education
will be extremely important.
These are negative phenomena. They have negative
implications, namely that the public administration
in Poland, but also politicians and judges, in
other words those who are in the focus of the
reporters' investigations, have of late been quite
intensely trying to restrict access to public information.
For example, this week there will be sessions of
a parliamentary sub-committee working on the government
draft amending the law on access to confidential
information. There is a considerable debate
about the government proposed amendments aimed
at restricting access to public information, restricting
publication for a period of 50 years. Some institutions,
like the Polish Press Freedom Monitoring Centre,
have expressed their concern about these developments,
but they have not been widely publicised.

Fighting Monsters
The questions arising from this discussion are: To
speak up or not to speak up? To publish or not
to publish? To realise and to measure the implications
of our decisions to publish, or not? My answer to
these questions is quite simple. Yes, publish it. The
way I see this situation is more or less like playing
pool. Any decision we take is an approach to the
table. If anyone thinks the decision not to publish is
not joining in the game, they will be proved wrong. If
we come up to the table and want to strike the white
ball that will strike at 15 coloured ones, and if we
think we can foresee what will happen next, then I
think we are trying to play God and that is too much
of a scope of authority for the free media. So this
question is quite simple really, because I think it is not
the key question or the most difficult question.
The most difficult question is that which has to
be asked at an earlier stage, when the issue arises. A
wise man once said that truth is more important than
facts. This statement, which appears to be incoherent,
is quite true. I once heard this funny story about a
British diplomat who, in the early years of the last
century, was travelling to New York on a diplomatic
mission. Everyone warned him that the American
press was very aggressive and that he had to be very
careful with every word he spoke, because whatever
he said could be used against him. He prepared a Q &
A list. He prepared answers to all the difficult questions
and when he was walking down the gangway he
was asked a very difficult question that he did not
expect, "Are you going to visit any nightclubs in New
York?" He froze and answered, "Are there any nightclubs
in New York?" So proud of having avoided the
trap, he went off to his hotel. The next morning he
opened the newspaper. On the front page he read the
headlines, "Are There Any Nightclubs in New York?:
This Was the First Question Asked by an English
Lord Walking onto American Soil." This was a fact,
but it was not the truth.
So again, back to the question that should
always be raised at the beginning of the process. What
are our intentions? Why are we tackling the case? Is it
because we are outraged at what happened? Do we
have strong suspicions that we can prove it, or do we
suspect that our reporter is involved in some conflict
of interest, that he bears a grudge? Maybe we agree
that we should write about it because we do not like
the person. It is not a simple question, but then if you
give it the right answer, if you give it an honest and
candid answer, then it appears that all the remaining
questions become quite simple. If we know that we
took the case bona fide and that we have good intentions,
then we will win.
How do you make the right decision and promote
and sustain high moral standards in one's
organisation? I am definitely way too young to speak
about that. I would rather listen to some advice than
give it. What I do know – because I am not only a
reporter but also a businessman at the station I am
running – is that when we speak of high moral standards,
I treat this not as something worth doing but as
an investment and insurance. It is just as important
an insurance policy as the policy that I have on my car
or whatever. It is the most reasonable explanation
I can imagine for why we should spend money on it.
We see bad people committing
crimes or offences and walking away
unscathed. We see good people
who want to do good things and
are punished for that, and it is very
easy for us to move away from
seeking the truth to taking revenge.
One of the reasons why it is difficult to maintain
high moral standards is that everyday in our work we
touch the dirty side of life. We see politicians playing
their dirty games under the shroud of public interest.
Not all, but unfortunately many, do that. We see bad
people committing crimes or offences and walking
away unscathed. We see good people who want to do
good things and are punished for that, and it is very
easy for us to move away from seeking the truth to
taking revenge.
My apologies for being so highbrowed, so highminded,
but I would like to end this with a quote from
Friedrich Nietzsche, "Beware that, when fighting
monsters, you yourself do not become a monster, for
when you gaze long into the abyss, the abyss gazes
also into you."
33
Maciej Sojka
President of the Board,
TVN, Warsaw

Tomasz Wróblewski
Editor−in−Chief,
Newsweek Poland,
Warsaw
Rebuilding Confidence
Piotr Stasiński spoke so interestingly about the
perception of Gazeta Wyborcza among readers.
But I think that it is a problem pertaining to all of us
in the media who feel that last year was quite strange.
We had lots of successes in terms of influencing public
life, making it saner but, at the same time, we had
many a failure in terms of the perception of journalists
and the positioning of publications.
When I speak of our success, which is the beginning
of our failure, of all the Four Estates the media
are the best developed in our country. But I think also
in all of Central and Eastern Europe they are the best
organised from a business standpoint. They have the
best organisation of sets of values. If we compare the
judiciary, the executive and legislative authorities, I
feel that we journalists can feel to be in a privileged
position.
This gave us definitely a lot of satisfaction in our
work and a lot of understanding in the public opinion
but it did pose some traps and I think that we were
not quite able to avoid them.
Particularly in feeling we were special, we
thought and we still sometimes continue to think that
we have a special right to assess behaviours and also
to put labels on politicians and even some social
groups. There were many radio, TV and print journalists
who said they would not speak to some politi-
34
I think that too often we define
entire social groups, calling them
populists and not really looking
carefully enough at their opinions.
cians simply because they represented parties that
they did not like. I think that too often we define
entire social groups, calling them populists and not
really looking carefully enough at their opinions. I
think we at Newsweek are certainly not free from this,
since we ourselves are guilty in having come to be perceived
as part of the establishment because of the fact
that we would report on various scandals. We would
also frequently be accused of having been involved,
but then we seem to have spoken too often in one
voice with politicians even when we were attacking
them and we were too often perceived as being part of
the establishment.
We have learned a lot over the last years. You
see fewer journalists at parties thrown by rich business
people. The relationships between business, journalism
and politics has changed. We are more like
observers than participants now. I think competition,
which has increased particularly since last year, has
certainly forced us to show more modesty and listen
more carefully to what readers have to say. If we want
their money, we need to understand their intentions
better.
I think this has been a very difficult and bad
year for Poland, as President Kwaśniewski said,
because of the various political scandals in our
region. But seeing as we really are the avant-garde
fighting against irregularities, this has been a very difficult
year for us, not only for Gazeta Wyborcza and
Agora, but also for all journalists. We are now faced
with a year of rebuilding confidence and explaining
to our readers the view that we are not part of the
establishment.

SUNDAY 16 May 2004
Press Freedom in the Former
Soviet Union
Chairperson
and Introduction
Alexander Pumpianski,
Editor-in-Chief,
Novoye Vremya, Moscow
Panelists
Ales Ancipienka,
Political Scientist
and Free Speech Activist, Minsk
Akaki Gogichaishvili,
News Anchor,
"60 Minutes",
Rustavi 2, Tbilisi
Myroslava Gongadze,
Correspondent,
Radio Free Europe, Ukraine/USA
Azer Hasret,
Chairman, Central Asian and Southern
Caucasian Freedom of Expression Network
(CASCFEN), Baku
Raimondas Sestakauskas,
Managing Director,
TV4, Vilnius

The Tide of History
Sergei Kovalev, in one of the previous sessions,
gave a very precise picture of the political regime
and the political situation and the social climate in
Russia. I think that this provides enough background
on the situation facing the media in Russia, because of
This works for his authority will just add some details,
some psychological details, about the political regime
of President Vladimir Putin and the president's men,
also known as the KGB or St. Petersburg mafia.
Putin, in a sense, regards the capacities of the
media in a very complimentary way. He probably
thinks of the media as some kind of magic. He has
some proof of this because in the year 2000 he was
nothing, he was no one, and from nothing he became
president of the country and the electorate voted for
him. This miracle was created, in a way, by the controllable
media, so he now thinks that the main task
of State media is to do small and big miracles in his
own personal interest. If the media is so capable of
turning water to wine, then the main thing is to gain
control over the media.
Putin has effectively gained this control. All the
big TV chains are now under so-called State control.
Of course, I must add that the very notion of State
control is now very different from that in Communist
times. It is not totalitarian. It is not control with censorship,
but rather the name of the game is personal
loyalty to the president. This is a precondition for
everything. Journalists are pretty free to express even
sarcasm or sometimes criticism toward other figures
of the regime. So much the better, it only proves that
Putin is the god of system, the only one beyond criticism.
To have the sacred cow, that is the name of the
game.
But I must add something, which is even worse
than those remarks about the psychology of the
regime, about those trends to control. I feel something
like sadness regarding the role of the media in my
country and the reason why is because the historic
trend has changed. This is much worse than the ambitions
of a certain politician or statesman, be he even
the president.
Ten or 15 years ago we had absolutely different
times. Think of Glasnost and the hopes and the
atmosphere we had at that time. At that time, media
was absolutely indispensable in social life. Media was
a revelation. Practically every word of the media was
a revelation. Media had philosophic and ideological
content. It appealed to the basic dimensions of social
and human existence. It overturned the stones of the
system. This is what the media was doing. The Com-
munist regime was based on lies and the media gave to
society words of truth and those words of truth
would destroy the system.
Today, media is not about truth. Now media is
about information, which is not bad, but it is another
dimension. More than that, very often it is not about
information. It is about the news of the day, which
will change tomorrow.
President Kwaśniewski said an hour or two ago
that the media reflects public life. More than that, the
media is creating the rules of public life. That is no
longer the case in my country. In my country, I would
say the media is not creating the rules of public life
and very often it is not even reflecting on public life.
The media as a mission is not dead, but only a few
journalists and mainly in the print media, in small
publications, still feel that the media is a mission. The
majority feel that the media is a trade, nothing more.
Conformism is the main tune and dissident views are
again regarded as something suspicious.
Coming back to the psychology of the regime, I
would say that conspiracy is the style of Putin's men.
Whatever Putin decides, be it the appointment of a
prime minister or his future speech before the nation,
everything is organised as a great conspiracy. Nobody
knows what will happen exactly. This is the mode of
thinking of this St. Petersburg secret service mafia.
Conformism is the main tune
and dissident views are again
regarded as something suspicious.
I have a personal definition of journalism. Journalism
is a trade, which makes top secrets topless
secrets. If this is true, then of course it is against the
mood of the secret service, people who are now in our
government. These are bad times for the people of my
trade. But it is much worse not because of this psychological
phenomenon but mostly because it is very
good to swim with the tide of history. This is why in
the times of Glasnost we were so important, not only
in our own eyes, but also really in social terms. It is
very difficult to swim against the tide of history. Now,
unfortunately, the tide of history in my country is
against us. Ten years ago the tide was from Communism
to democracy. Now the people feel deceived
because their hopes and ambitions were not fulfilled.
Now they feel that democracy is a bad word. Liberalism
is a bad word. Freedom of speech is something
that did not bring good results, so let's do away with
it. We don't need this independent media.
37
Alexander
Pumpianski,
Editor−in−Chief,
Novoye Vremya,
Moscow

Myroslava Gongadze
Correspondent,
Radio Free Europe,
Ukraine/USA
Abusing the Media
in Ukraine
My first point is that the media in the former
Soviet Union are abused. Like any influential
resource, the media are abused in multiple ways – by
business clans in order to advance their business
interests and fight competitors, and by the authorities
to brainwash people with government propaganda.
However, when journalists resist such abuse, they risk
being abused physically. This is the kind of abuse my
family experienced four years ago.
On 16 September 2000, my husband Georgiy
Gongadze never came home from work. He was editor-in-chief
of the independent news Website,
Ukrainian Truth, which openly criticised the authorities
and described their corrupt activities. Two
months after the founding of this Web-based newspaper,
one of Georgiy's sponsors stopped financing it
because he disagreed with the newspaper's critical
style. Still, Georgiy refused to back down. During the
next months, he received several warnings that his life
might be in danger. He also noticed that he was being
followed. However, we did not quite realise the real
source of these threats. Georgiy continued publishing
articles about the corrupt activities of the oligarchs
and the president's closest circle.
When Georgiy disappeared, I first thought he
was kidnapped. The journalistic community in
Ukraine started a highly publicised campaign to find
him. However, as days and weeks went by, the authorities
showed little enthusiasm investigating his disappearance.
This was no surprise to many of us, since
none of the previous crimes against journalists and
opposition activists were fully investigated. However,
even I did not suspect that the highest-ranking
authorities, including the President of Ukraine, were
behind his murder. Soon, just two months after his
disappearance, I first learned how seriously the work
of one particular investigative journalist was taken at
the highest levels of power in Ukraine. We learned
this from the secret recordings, which were made in
the office of the President of Ukraine by his security
guard, Major Mykola Melnychenko. The content of
the recordings dealing with Georgiy was publicised by
the leader of the Socialist party, Oleksandr Moroz, at
the end of November 2000. These and other recordings
of conversations between President Leonid
Kuchma and key ministers, politicians and businessmen
reveal the full picture of how the authoritarian
power was built and practiced in Ukraine.
38
On 16 September 2000, my husband
Georgiy Gongadze never came home
from work.
To his extensive formal powers, which include
personally appointing all key ministers, control over
investigative bodies and heads of all local governments,
President Kuchma added an informal network
of agencies and individuals. Together, they ensured
his continued political survival. This informal power
structure consisted of two tiers: the "nomenclatura"
(high-ranking national and local government officials)
and business oligarchs.
This nomenclatura included the government
officials in the Tax Administration, Security Service
(SBU), Interior Ministry and General Prosecutor's
office. The heads of the first two bodies are appointed
directly by the president, while the latter two are
appointed with the parliament's consent, but both are
directly subordinate to the president. They provided
Kuchma with means to coerce and intimidate industrial
and agricultural businesses as well as opposition
leaders and media through numerous tax inspections
or criminal investigations.
Recordings of President Kuchma, which were
made and released by his former security guard and
authenticated by the U.S. forensic expert Bruce
Koenig, provide ample evidence of such practices.
Kuchma relied on the coercive potential of the four
central government agencies to neutralise any potential
opposition to his policies even after securing reelection.
As Melnychenko's recordings show, on 8
February 2000, President Kuchma ordered the Head
of the Security Service, Leonid Vasyliovych Derkach,
to organise a violent reprisal against the Member of
Parliament Oleksandr Yelyashkevych for his public
criticisms of Kuchma's attempts to subdue the parliament.
The next evening, Yelyashkevych was physically
assaulted by an unknown man and, as a result,
incapacitated for two months. Mr. Yelyashkevych
now lives in the United States as a political refugee.
Other recordings point to Interior Minister
Yuriy Kravchenko's involvement in the kidnapping of
assistants of opposition leader Serhiy Holovatyi, and
Kuchma's requests to silence a number of independent
journalists, including Yulia Mostova from
Dzerkalo Tyzhnya, Tatiana Korobova from Grani,
Oleh Lyashko from Svoboda, Oleh Yeltsov from
Ukraina Kryminalna and, finally, Georgiy Gongadze.
It was Interior Minister Kravchenko and
Derkach, who I think played a key role in the murder
of my husband.
In the months following Georgiy's disappearance,
Prosecutor General Mykhaylo Potebenko and
his office sabotaged the investigation of this crime
and provided a cover-up for top state officials implicated
in it. After months of fruitless struggle with the

General Prosecutor's office I understood that the
crime against my husband would not be fully investigated
as long as the current president remains in
power.
Up to this point, the General Prosecutor's office
ignored all the critical evidence in the crime and
refused to conduct an objective and open investigation.
This crime has attracted the world's attention,
but it did not become the last murder of a journalist
in Ukraine. The deaths of at least four others could be
attributed to their professional activities. Another
investigative journalist, Ihor Alexandrov, was beaten
to death with baseball bats just a year after my husband's
murder. He was an anchor on the local TV station
in Donetsk and investigated the corrupt dealings
of the region's businessmen. The Governor of Donetsk,
Viktor Yanukovych, together with the head of the
regional Persecutor's Office, Gennadiy Vasiliev, provided
a cover-up for the instigators of the murder.
Today, Yanukovych is Ukraine's Prime Minister and
Vasiliev is the country's General Prosecutor.
The persecution and abuse of the media is not
unique to Ukraine, but can be found in most of the
post-Soviet states. Here are a few excerpts from the
report of the Committee to Protect Journalists:
Russia: President Putin continues using the state
apparatus to rein in the independent media.
Belarus: Using a broad arsenal of weapons,
President Lukashenko carried out an unprecedented
assault against the independent and opposition press.
Kazakhstan: President Nazarbaev has consolidated
his control over the airwaves and newsstands
ahead of parliamentary and presidential elections.
But I think it is already clear to everyone that
the journalist's profession has become one of the
most dangerous in this part of the world. However,
the courage of a few individuals by itself cannot solve
the problems of the media in the post-Soviet world.
International organisations, like the Council of
Europe and OSCE, and international NGOs should
play a role in promoting freedom of speech. But their
reaction should not be purely reactive. It has to be
proactive.
First of all, the murder of a journalist is often
preceded by his or her harassment and intimidation.
If international organisations could intervene at this
stage, they would be able to save lives.
Secondly, international organisations should
not just monitor and react to politically motivated
crimes, but also take an active role in their investigation.
The persecution and abuse of the
media is not unique to Ukraine,
but can be found in most of the
post−Soviet states.
Therefore, I believe that international organisations
and NGOs should work out a mechanism,
which could allow them to investigate high-profile
crimes that are being sidelined by relevant state
authorities. It might not necessarily require surpassing
national jurisdiction, but it could do at least partial
justice to the victims by exposing the identities of
the crime's perpetrators. Such an investigative mechanism
would also create a form of international
accountability, not only for those state officials who
commit crimes on a mass scale, but also for all those
who instigate crimes even against a few individuals.
In conclusion, I would like to emphasise three
final points:
1. Any journalist who investigates corruption in
an authoritarian or semi-authoritarian country faces
a deadly risk. However, if a journalist comes from the
West or is a citizen of a Western country, the authorities
are less inclined to use force or the threat of
force. So Western journalists may in fact be more
effective in uncovering corruption in these countries
than local reporters.
2. One of the overlooked ways to help journalists
in oppressed countries is to provide them with
insurance in the case of death or loss of working abilities.
This might be a task for those NGOs protecting
journalists and media freedoms around the world.
3. The new policy of the Bush administration
proposes to introduce visa bans for those corrupt foreign
officials whose activities damage U.S. national
interests. I would suggest that the U.S. and the
Western community go further than that. I suggest
that they refuse entrance to all foreign government
officials and business owners of media outlets who
abuse the rights of journalists and limit their freedoms.
This will be the best way for the West to prove
its commitment to the principle of free speech.
39

Raimondas
Sestakauskas
Managing Director,
TV4, Vilnius
A Process of Maturing
The Iron Curtain, which 15 years ago divided the
democratic European West from the authoritarian
East, is still apparent in various areas of life in the
Eastern European countries proceeding along the
road toward democratic development. Still vivid are
memories of the past. They are particularly apparent
in the mass media. Until the presidential crisis last
year in Lithuania, the printed press, radio and television
in the post-Communist period enjoyed the unreserved
and extraordinary confidence of society. The
mass media in Lithuania remained the sacred cow,
whose voice preached the truth and nothing but the
truth. Politicians, businessmen, corrupt structures did
not fail to take advantage of this and we did not have
to wait very long for the results. Confidence in the
press fell dramatically.
At the April conference of UNESCO in Paris,
UNESCO Goodwill Ambassador and President of
Lithuania, Valdas Adamkus, noted that freedom of
the press is possible only if journalists themselves are
free. Adamkus, in an interview given to Lithuanian
Radio, said that freedom of the press is not only needed
for the development of democracy, but that it is
democracy itself. He underscored that freedom of
speech is assured only when journalists are free and
independent.
In public statements, the president of the Pontifical
Council for Social Communications, Archbishop
John Foley, has said that there were three fundamental
principles for the media and that with the growing
importance of the mass media it was extremely
important to remember the rules upon which every
journalist should base his activity. Foley says every
medium should recognise three principles: That truth
has a priority and that this must always be observed;
that every journalist must respect the dignity of the
human person; and that the information must serve
the good of society.
In Lithuania and the rest of the post-Soviet
bloc, these rules continue to be broken. Why? Firstly,
let us look at who is at the receiving end of contemporary
mass media. In Lithuania, a mass media market
research organisation published poll results in
April in which consumers were divided into groups
according to their habitual use of the mass media.
The analysis indicated that there are seven groups:
avoiders; non-users; passive; modernist, up-to-date,
new generation, and Russian speaking. Less than four
per cent of respondents belonged to none of these
groups.
Research showed that the largest group are the
avoiders – about 19 per cent of the country's inhabitants.
They are usually city dwellers, aged 45 and
above, with a low income. They lead a modest life
style and preach traditional values. The avoiders
spend the most time in front of the TV set. The sen-
40
ior inhabitants of rural areas and small townships are
mainly non-users, about 15 per cent, who only listen
to news on the radio and read newspapers published
for rural communities. They usually do not even have
a TV set. The lower and middle class representatives
living in rural areas, about 16 per cent, are the passive
community. They particularly like criminal reports
and Lithuanian music broadcasting. About 11 per
cent are modernists, woman aged 25 to 35 who usually
read women's publications and glossy magazines. A
similar percentage are up-to-daters, well educated and
high-earning males aged about 35. They are the key
customers for national dailies and business and specialist
press. They also frequently surf on-line. However,
even more active in terms of on-line surfing is
the new generation, about 14 per cent of Lithuania's
inhabitants. These are usually young people under the
age of 25. Apart from the Internet and cinemas, the
new generation is also particularly interested in radio
stations transmitting world music, pop music, etc.
Research has shown that mass media users in
Lithuania are not homogeneous. They do not have a
common source of information, which unites all and
meets the interests of everyone. In the recent past,
only the Communist Party press met this requirement.
However, this press – released from the Party
yoke – is now easily bought and can be controlled
with financial instruments. And this brings us to the
major problem of media ethics or press ethics.
The mass media markets of individual countries
have their particular features, but all of them observe
the same essential rules. The press has to tackle the
same ethical problems all over the world. In the duel
between journalists' ethics and commercial interests,
the latter one wins and the reader loses. The Lithuanian
Inspector on the Ethics of Journalists recently
said that the mass media today is on a collision course
between the impartial information provided to society
and the interests of companies. He says that the
interests of political parties have been constantly
changing, but that the press maintained its position
and prestige for 15 years, although recently it has
changed.
Now let me tell you about the conditions for
post-Communist media in Lithuania. The conditions
are better than you would expect. It is much easier to
work in Lithuania than in the old capitalist countries,
where the notion of freedom is inseparably bound
with the principles and obligations towards the society.
Such restrictions and difficulties are not encountered
by Lithuanian journalists to such a great extent.
Lithuanian mass media in the past 14 years have
covered the long and important way towards democracy.
They did not only form an important part in the
process of democracy, but also conditioned it themselves.
Today Lithuanian mass media are free of total-

itarian restrictions, but still encounter real dangers
and temptations that are characteristic for all new
democracies. Our obligation and goal, the obligation
Iwould like to focus on the general media situation
in Central Asia and the Southern Caucasus, a
region which covers eight countries: Armenia, Azerbaijan
and Georgia in the Caucasus, and Kazakhstan,
Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and
Uzbekistan in Central Asia. The Central Asian and
Southern Caucasian Freedom of Expression Network
(CASCFEN) is a network of press freedom
organisations based in these countries.
I would first like to draw your attention to the
legal environment in the region. The constitutions of
all these countries declare that the press or mass
media are free of any state control, and that censorship
is prohibited. But these are just declarations. In
some countries, of course, this part of the constitution
does not work and the governments of these
countries exert censorship on the mass media. For
example, mass media in Turkmenistan are totally controlled
by the government of President Separmurad
Niyazov. Some 45 newspapers operate in this country
and the founder of all these newspapers is either
Niyazov himself or his government. There are no
signs of any independent, free media. Nobody has the
right to raise his or her voice with regard to freedom
of the media.
In neighbouring Uzbekistan there are some
signs of press freedom, but that does not mean that
this country has a free press or free electronic mass
media. There is very little access to on-line media in
Uzbekistan. Certain Websites are blocked and one
can speak of Uzbekistan as a kind of closed country.
In both Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, you cannot
bring foreign newspapers into the country. When you
enter the country, you are subjected to searches by
customs officers and they will of course take all the
newspapers. They will not allow you to enter with
these newspapers, whether they are in English, Russian
or other languages.
Laws on mass media differ in these countries.
For example, I can tell you that the law on mass
media of the Republic of Azerbaijan allows anybody
of all those who work in the mass media, is to undergo
a process of maturing and rid ourselves of the
problems of this difficult period.
The Media Environment
in Central Asia and
the Southern Caucasus
in the country to go to the Ministry of Justice, submit
a piece of paper with his name and the newspaper's
name, and start publishing a newspaper after one
week. This is made as simple as possible. But you cannot
establish a newspaper in Uzbekistan or Turkmenistan,
or other parts of our region. It is very difficult.
I will move on to state organs dealing with mass
media like ministries, committees, councils, state censorship
bodies and agencies. In the Caucasus, I can
say that we are happy because the media is self-regulated.
Most print media is self-regulated, but this does
not mean that the media in these countries is totally
free.
The situation in Georgia is very different. I am
not going to talk about Georgia as we have a speaker
from Georgia here. I will give some examples from
Armenia and Azerbaijan. These two countries are in
the same position. Both of them are rated "not free"
by the Washington, DC-based Freedom House, since
all electronic mass media in these countries are controlled
by the government or some people who are
linked to the government. There is an exception for
print media even though there are few opposition
newspapers. I cannot say we have independent newspapers,
because it is indeed very difficult to run an
independent newspaper in these countries. There are
problems with advertisements, with newsprint, with
the publication of newspapers and with distribution.
That is why newspapers can unfortunately be divided
into two types, government newspapers and opposition
newspapers.
In Azerbaijan, we do not have a Ministry of
Information or a Ministry of Press. This means that
the print media is self-regulated. In 2003, we launched
the first Press Council in the CIS (Commonwealth of
Independent States) region. Of course, I cannot say
that this Press Council is acting very effectively, but I
can say that it is just starting up and we hope that it
will act better in the coming years.
Let us move on to journalists' associations. We
41
Azer Hasret,
Chairman, Central Asian
and Southern Caucasian
Freedom of Expression
Network

Ales Ancipienka
Political Scientist and Free
Speech Activist, Minsk
have a lot of journalists' associations in the Caucasus
countries, while the countries of Central Asia sometimes
suffer from a lack of effective associations. You
will not find any association in Turkmenistan or
Uzbekistan that is not under the control of the government.
There are different associations in Kazakhstan
and Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan but, unfortunately,
journalists in these countries suffer from a lack
To figure out the Belarusian media situation two
questions should be answered. First, who are the
main players? And second, what is the result in terms
of freedom of speech in the country?
With regard to the first question, a symbolic fact
of contemporary Belarusian history is that the first
democratically elected Belarusian president, who in
1994 used to the utmost the freedom of speech existing
in the country, started his presidency by taking
total control of the State Radio and TV Company, as
well as over all State-owned newspapers.
Two imperfections in the Belarusian legislation
made that possible. First, at that time the country had
no Press Law that could guarantee the development
of independent and private media. Secondly, the new
Belarusian Constitution adopted after the breakdown
of the Soviet Union did not contain any good definitions
of presidential authority.
It should also be noted that by the first presidential
election there had already existed a number of
independent newspapers in Belarus. And there existed
a true access to information as well as freedom of
expression.
Generally speaking, 1991-94 was the period of
liberal transformations in the Belarusian society.
However, in a number of respects that was a paradoxical
situation. Against the general chaotic changes
and the former Soviet ideological background, freedom
of speech was perceived to be something like a
sign of general decay. In the end, nostalgic feelings for
the Soviet era started dominating in the Belarusian
society. And the appearance of an authoritarian
politician like Aleksandr Lukashenka was in a way
predetermined.
Any authoritarian rule actually makes the position
of State media dependent upon it. As for the
42
of solidarity. With regard to journalist trade unions I
can only say that we have one in Azerbaijan, and one
in Kyrgyzstan. Other countries simply do not have
effective trade unions.
With regard to the rights of journalists, intimidation,
harassment, imprisonments, attacks, killings,
beatings, confiscations, unfair trials, etc., are unfortunately
widespread throughout the region.
The Belarusian Media
Scene: An Old Performance
Restaged
non-State media, if there are any, they are put under
pressure. In Belarus there were two basic reasons for
Lukashenka doing that after his coming to power.
His presidential campaign was already a real
example of a populist approach to different problems.
So the first reason was that of a populist nature. This
means that the press had to be tightly controlled so
that the voice of an ambitious populist would be the
loudest one in the society. As for any other voices,
they are to be subordinated. If they do not agree, they
are oppressed.
The second reason stems from the nature of any
authoritarian rule. Critical thinking as well as a critical
public opinion is a threat to the authoritarian
regime. So this is a purposeful reason based on the
instinct of political self-preservation.
Thus, having assumed control over all State electronic
and print media already by the end of 1995,
Lukashenka became the first and most powerful
agent in the Belarusian media scene.
The second player was Belarusian business.
Although at that time there were no legal procedures
to make investments in the media, Belarusian businessmen
started either to publish their own newspapers
or to support opposition ones that already existed.
That was the beginning of the media market in
Belarus.
By 1996, however, it was clear that Belarusian
business had become a new target of the Belarusian
authorities. As a result of a changed tax policy and
criminal persecution, the most successful and the
biggest companies were obliged either to immigrate
or were destroyed. Small and medium scale businesses
moved into a "grey zone" or disappeared. Nowadays
Belarusian business is no longer a real player in
the Belarusian media scene.

That makes the position of two other players in
the Belarusian media scene, namely the Belarusian
independent press and Russian electronic and print
media, quite peculiar.
If you compare the position today of the independent
Belarusian press in the Belarusian media
scene with its position in the mid 1990s, it is characterised
by a significant degradation. This is the result
of a number of factors, among which the most important
is the pressure exerted on it by the authorities by
means of a number of quite different oppressive
tools. It should be also stressed that this process
gained momentum after the last presidential election
held in Belarus in 2001.
With regard to the Belarusian independent
media, there exists, generally speaking, a kind of
dynamic of pressure. First, they start being oppressed
on the eve of a political event prepared by the authorities.
And sometimes even far in advance. This is a
kind of preventive action meant to limit the influence
of the independent press on public opinion. Second,
the independent media are oppressed after the event.
In this case, we are dealing with a vengeful action
taken against those Belarusian media that had a different
view on an event. Basically, the waves of
oppression coincide with the preparation of the most
important political campaigns launched by the
authorities.
Last year, the independent media faced a new
wave of oppression. Suffice it to say that from the
beginning of the 2003 until now more than 20 independent
newspapers, both national and regional, were
either closed by the authorities or disappeared
because of financial reasons. This means that half of
the independent media in the country have already
disappeared. And it should also be added that today
there is not one independent radio or TV station in
Belarus.
Let me talk to you briefly about the means of
oppression that are most often used against independent
newspapers.
First, there are special "legislative" means. For
example, according to the Belarusian Press Law, the
Ministry of Information of the Republic of Belarus
can issue official warnings to media without applying
to the courts. After three warnings have been issued,
a newspaper or radio station can be legally closed.
Second, these are means of economic discrimination.
Third, there is censorship.
Fourth, there are criminal persecutions of journalists
and newspapers.
Fifth, there is the distribution problem, which is
artificially created by the authorities.
Sixth, there are huge fines imposed on newspapers,
which are aimed at stopping them from publishing.
And finally, some independent newspapers are
banned from printing in the country.
Suffice it to say that from the
beginning of the 2003 until now more
than 20 independent newspapers,
both national and regional, were
either closed by the authorities
or disappeared because of financial
reasons.
A couple of words should also be said about the
last player in the Belarusian media scene, namely, the
Russian media. These are Russian TV and radio
channels, as well as print media. Lately, some Russian
TV channels have been put under pressure for being
critical of Lukashenka. The restrictions on Russian
media have coincided with the worsening relations
between Russia and Belarus in the so-called Belarus-
Russia integration process.
The role of Russian media in the Belarusian
scene is actually ambiguous. Despite the fact that
from time to time they are critical of Lukashenka,
they are actually ignorant of the basic cultural, social
and political problems in the country. It is in part
because of the influence of the Russian media that a
significant portion of the Belarusian population cannot
get rid of a number of post-Soviet and post-colonial
identity complexes.
In conclusion, it can be ascertained that the
restriction of freedom of speech in Belarus is politically
motivated. There is no real media market in the
country. The main player in the Belarusian media
scene is the political regime, which strives to prolong
its existence beyond the terms defined by the current
Constitution.
And finally, in answering the second question
regarding the state of freedom of speech in Belarus, I
will be very short. The Belarusian formula for freedom
of speech is as follows: You can say anything you
want, but you will be punished.
43

Akaki Gogichaishvili
News Anchor, "60 Minutes",
Rustavi 2, Tbilisi
Before and After
the Revolution of Roses
All of you most certainly know that the 13-year
dictatorship of Eduard Shevardnadze ended
peacefully just a few months ago. But perhaps not all
of you are aware of how big a role the media played
in the so-called Revolution of Roses that brought
down the regime. Thousands of protesters, waving
red roses, followed Mikhail Saakashvili and his political
team toward the parliamentary and presidential
buildings demanding the resignation of the government,
but just a year earlier the politicians leading the
protesters were the highest-ranking members of the
government. It would have been difficult to imagine
the strong public support behind them without the
work of the media.
Day in and day out, for years, Georgian media
rallied public opinion against the existing political
system, which was based on corruption, police brutality,
social injustice, and disinformation. By
denouncing the existing regime and proposing
changes, the media prepared a very fertile ground for
the new political opposition to gain strong public
support.
It was extremely difficult for the independent,
responsible media to carry out its duties during Shevardnadze's
regime and it has been no easier since the
Revolution.
To illustrate the peculiarities of both periods, I
will tell the story of my investigative programme, "60
Minutes", which, since its first broadcast five years
ago, has been at the top of the ratings in the country
and a major source in exposing government misdeeds.
My very first broadcast of "60 Minutes", which
accused the son-in-law of Shevardnadze of leading
the so-called energy mafia, was followed by a phone
call from him, in which he demanded the closure of
the programme and threatened to withdraw all advertising
of his mobile telephone company, which he did,
causing major financial loss to our company. Yet that
was just the beginning.
A reporter who worked with me was approached
several times by armed people who demanded that
she leave the show or her little son would be kidnapped.
She in fact did leave the programme, but others
came, who were determined to withstand similar
pressures. By the direct order of President Shevardnadze,
a joint commission was set up with the Minis-
44
On several occasions, our windows
were shot at by snipers. Rockets were
launched into our office. One of our
journalists was killed by a gunshot in
his apartment. Yet we kept on going.
ter of Interior, Minister of National Security and the
Prosecutor General to investigate our "60 Minutes".
Three ministers personally looking into the work of
three journalists working for the show. The commission
inevitably came up with the decision that was
show was guilty of falsification. A few days later the
Deputy Prosecutor General suggested I close the programme
and leave the country or else forces not controlled
by him would kill me. Instead, we went public
about it and received huge public support in the form
of massive rallies and protest demonstrations
throughout the whole country.
We have been subject to constant attacks from
the government that included physical intimidation,
death threats, blackmailing, and attempts to discredit
us. On several occasions, our windows were shot at by
snipers. Rockets were launched into our office. One of
our journalists was killed by a gunshot in his apartment.
Yet we kept on going. Three times the government
shut down our channel but we kept reviving it
due to unanimous international and domestic popular
support. Just two years ago, the Ministry of
National Security Forces besieged our office in an
attempt to shut the company down. For a whole
week, over 20,000 people protested this move in front
of the parliamentary buildings, eventually forcing the
government to step down. Shevardnadze promised to
call extraordinary presidential elections, but after the
people went home he reinstated the whole government.
Actually, it was at that point that for the first
time a political opposition emerged from among Shevardnadze's
political allies. Because the media prepared
strong public opinion against the existing
regime, the new opposition was able to bring about a
revolution in a matter of a year and a half. In fact, the
Revolution itself was less about political confrontation.
Rather it was a product of the media and particularly
a television war between the pro-government
and opposition TV channels.
Not surprisingly, after coming to power, the new
government started with the persecution of the owner
of one of the television companies that supported
Shevardnadze during the Revolution. This was
labelled as a war against corruption, and in fact it
was, but it was also a clear message to other owners of
media outlets, and especially television companies.
Who are the owners of television companies in
Georgia? Mafia-like businessmen, oligarchs for
whom the media is a matter of prestige and self-lobbying
rather than a profit-oriented venture. Because
all of these people committed lots of sins during Shevardnadze's
regime and are very cautious now not to

anger the new government and escape persecution,
their media outlets do not provide criticism of the
new government.
As for my channel, during the revolution it
became so close to the political opposition, which has
since become the government, that there is now an
ongoing honeymoon relationship between the two.
My programme, "60 Minutes", is off the air, with
promises to resume in September, but that is not quite
clear. Right after the Revolution, and prior to the
extraordinary parliamentary elections, owners of all
the television companies gathered and decided to shut
down all the political talk shows in order to help the
new government. Not that these shows were of particularly
good quality or significance but they did
allow different political parties to debate live. Because
this fact was protested by international organisations,
the companies started new political shows, but now
they discuss less about government practices.
The State media, consisting of two national television
channels, two radio stations and about a
dozen newspapers, were neither abolished nor transformed
into public media. After formerly propagating
the regime of Shevardnadze, the same outlets now
praise the new government. Newspapers have so little
circulation and subsequently little impact that they do
not count in terms of building public awareness.
Thus, the new government now has what Shevardnadze
could not achieve during all his years in
power: complete immunity from the media, and
impunity for their mistakes, which are already quite a
few but not publicly accountable.
45

MONDAY 17 May 2004
The Debate over
the Future Borders
of Europe
Chairperson and Introduction
Peter Preston,
former Chairman of IPI;
Director, Guardian Foundation,
London
Panelists
Miguel Ángel Bastenier,
Editor for International Affairs, El País,
Madrid
Jiri Dienstbier,
Chairman, Czech Council on Foreign Relations;
former Foreign Minister of the Czech Republic
Cem Duna,
Member of the Board, Turkish Industrialists'
and Businessmen's Association (TUSIAD);
former Ambassador and Permanent Delegate
of Turkey to the European Union,
Istanbul
Janusz Onyszkiewicz,
former Polish Minister of Defence, Warsaw
Dragos Seuleanu,
President/CEO,
Romanian Radio Broadcasting
Corporation (ROR),
Bucharest

What is Europe?
Just a few brief remarks before we get started. One
is to say that for a journalist, I think that this is an
extremely interesting session, because (a) it is the sort
of thing that you will write many thousand of articles
about over the next few years, if you have not written
them already, and (b) because the answer to the question
will determine some of the shape and the style of
European journalism for decades, maybe hundreds of
years.
The questions we are looking at today are really
twofold. What is Europe? Is it a geographical concept?
Does it stop at the Bosporus or the Channel or
the Strait of Gibraltar? And within that, what are the
ideas which motivate it? Is it, as some would say,
intrinsically a grouping of Christian countries? Does
it have a Christian ethos? It does believe in human
rights. It does believe in democracy. It does believe in
the spread of the market and market forces. But all of
these things are still in play.
On Saturday night, I happened to be stuck in
front of a television set for an hour and a half
between planes watching the voting in the Eurovision
Song Contest. Though that is an odd experience, it
always seems to me entirely predictive in a curious
way. It is a vision of Europe that you do not see in
Brussels but, nevertheless, in a television sense, with a
hundred million people watching, has a good deal of
force and validity. It is one definition of where we are.
And where were we on Saturday? We were in Istanbul,
A European Identity
Regarding the question, "What is Europe?", let us
look first to geography. As Napoleon once said,
"Geography is a fate." We live on this small western
peninsula of the Asian Massif and so have always
been condemned to live together. It was very difficult
during the past several thousand years but, in this
cooperation, fighting, and so on, something common
must have developed in our society. There are, of
course, different ethnic perceptions, even folklore.
Some people in Britain infer that Europe ends at the
Rhine; others believe that it ends at the Elbe. For
some Czechs, it ends at the boundary with Slovakia.
For some Poles it is the boundary with Russia, and so
on. I even heard in Vienna that if you look out the
window to the east you see Asia, probably a reminder
of the period when the Ottoman Empire was in the
suburbs of Vienna. Dante Alighieri, some 800 years
ago, understood Europe as the space between the
which won last year, and we were voting heavily for
Ukraine, which won, just knocking out Serbia and
Montenegro, and in the wonderful ways of Eurovision
voting, you could see that the balance of power
in that Europe had totally changed.
Long ago, when I started watching these things,
Britain would occasionally win the Eurovision Contest
and sometimes you would be able to tip the vote
to Ireland. Then, when the Baltic states came in and
began to vote as a bloc, it was very useful for Sweden
to have Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia on board. The
Swedes began to make a good deal of progress and, in
the mutuality of voting, so did the Baltic states. Now
I do not think we shall ever see that happen again.
Croatia votes for Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bosnia-Herzegovina
votes for Croatia, Macedonia, Greece, Bulgaria,
Romania, Malta, and Turkey. And it is a terrific
bloc vote and it operates ruthlessly and predictably. I
am not knocking it. I am just saying that you can see
the dynamics of the whole thing laid bare and see the
change and movement of this wider European Union,
geographically and politically, almost from year to
year.
Heaven knows where we shall be for the Eurovision
Contest after Kiev, but meanwhile we have a distinguished
panel to discuss the more immediate political
ramifications. I am going to ask them to reply to
two basic questions. What is this Europe and what
defines it?
Mediterranean and Scandinavia, and between the
British Isles and the valley of the river Don, in what
is today the Ukraine.
So we can see that it is not only a question of
geography. It is also a question of historical development.
Since Roman times, for almost two thousand
years there were attempts to integrate Europe under
religious, nationalistic or ideological banners. But
what is more important, I think, is that for centuries
Europeans could travel freely without passports
or visas. They could travel and settle without these
artificial obstacles. This ended with the development
of nationalism in the 19 th century, when the emergence
of nation states and national hatreds led to the
First and Second World Wars. So, if we look at
it from this geographical, historical point of view, the
present European integration can be seen, in a sense,
as a return to European normality. But for the first
47
Peter Preston
former Chairman of IPI;
Director, Guardian
Foundation, London
Jiri Dienstbier
Chairman, Czech Council
on Foreign Relations;
former Foreign Minister
of the Czech Republic

Janusz Onyszkiewicz
former Polish Minister
of Defence, Warsaw
time, this development is not being enforced by
emperors, rulers or conquerors. It is developing
according to the free will of European citizens.
One hears very often about democratic deficiencies.
Of course, we can always improve democracy,
but I think that there is, de facto, no democratic deficiency.
We hear that European integration is in a crisis,
but European integration has been in a crisis since
the beginning. De Gaulle denied England's entry into
the European Community; the Danes refused Maastricht;
the Irish refused Nice. But, in this crisis,
Europe developed from a community of six nations
to 25, with a common currency and a developing
common foreign and security policy. This crisis is de
facto the confirmation that it is a totally democratic
process, because nothing can be achieved until the
moment when all the states accept the next step to
integration. So all this talk about losing sovereign
identity is nonsense, because we can move only when
the politicians in all these countries know that they
will not lose elections if they support certain steps
toward integration.
There is, of course, a lot of debate about European
identity. Does it exist or is it just a false construction?
We have a common heritage, which is
known in "Eurospeak" as the acquis communautaire.
48
We have a common heritage, which
is known in "Eurospeak" as the acquis
communautaire.
Europe: A Process
Iwould like to approach this problem from a slightly
different angle. I think that basically the concept
of Europe could be expressed in mathematical terms
as an intersection between areas of European culture
and Europe as a geographical concept.
Obviously both concepts are rather murky and
not well defined. I do not want to go into the characteristics
of what European culture is. In [Samuel]
Huntington terms, I would say that it is a combination
of Orthodox and Latin culture.
What geography says is also quite unclear. For
centuries we were ready to accept the fact that Mont
Blanc is the highest mountain in Europe. But what
about the Caucasus mountains? What about Mount
Elbrus? Should we consider that Europe ends at the
northern slopes of the Caucasus or should Europe
geographically embrace the countries south of this
mountain range? And what about countries that span
continents like Russia, or Turkey? Other countries,
It is not just these 60,000 pages of different documents.
It is much more. Sometimes it is simplified
in bureaucratic language as democracy, rule of law,
the market economy, but it is basically freedom of
the individual. This means, of course, freedom of
speech and media, personal responsibility, respect
for the diversity of minorities, equal rights of men
and women, and a lot of similar things, which are
common in European civilisation, but very often not
in some other cultures.
But it does not mean that the boundaries of
Europe are fixed. They were fixed for half a century
in a bi-lateral world and now we can observe how
the nations that liberated themselves from Communism
– and not only those with long democratic traditions
like Czechoslovakia or Hungary or Poland –
try to accept and implement these values of European
civilisation. You can see it also in the Balkans.
Everybody wants to be a member of the European
Union, even if a lot of people do not yet understand
what it means. But this example of European integration
is very important, because it helps them not
only to change the political and economic system, but
also to start understanding the values that are behind
this institution.
Therefore, to conclude, we are bound by geography,
we are bound by history, but we are also
bound by this acquis communautaire in its deepest
sense, and therefore the boundaries of Europe
depend on the acceptance of this result of our civilisation.
like Kazakhstan, also have part of their territory in
Europe.
So obviously there are difficulties and the question
is should we go for the cultural, civilisational
concept of Europe or should we rather speak about
the political concept of Europe. If we reduce our discussion
to the political concept, that makes the situation
a bit simpler, but not too simple, because there
are basically two concepts of political Europe. One is,
I would say, the concept of "soft" Europe. Soft
Europe as a certain political project, as a system of
values, a system of institutions with a vision to spread
this institutional stability and so on. Europe in this
sense is rather a process than a real concept with geographical
limits.
The other concept is much more restrictive and
this is the concept of the European Union as it was
seen at least some time ago. The European Union was
seen not as a set of institutions, a set of norms, but as

a political entity. Not only an economic and social
entity, but a political entity with a developing common
foreign and security policy and with the intention
of being, in political terms, a global player. In
this concept, European boundaries were, more or less,
already defined by new documents describing EU's
European Neighbourhood Policy. According to this
policy, Europe should be confined to the present
member countries of the European Union, plus countries
in the Western Balkans and Turkey. But again, if
we look at Turkey, which obviously is a very special
case, we see that Europe, by taking this decision to
embrace Turkey, will change its philosophy and also
its geopolitical situation.
Everybody here knows the book by Robert
Kagan about the United States and Europe, "Of Paradise
and Power." In his book, Kagan describes
Europe as an entity living in a Kantian paradise
where power does not really matter that much because
Europe can count on the United States to protect it.
The reason Europe can live in this Kantian paradise,
according to Kagan, is that somehow Europe is well
cushioned from every side. It has no boundaries that
are challenged; there are no flash points along the
border. But Turkey will bring a change to the European
position, because with Turkey in Europe,
Europe will be right in the middle of an extremely
volatile area and that is the Middle East. Another
problem, and a very serious problem, is the problem
of Ukraine, because naturally it would be extremely
difficult to say that Turkey qualifies as a European
country, as a member of the European Union, but not
Critical Mass
The famous British historian, Norman Davies,
wrote this monumental book called "Europe: A
History", and it is probably the most comprehensive
book ever written on Europe and European values.
The first sentence of this book starts with the dictum,
"In the beginning, there was no Europe." Clearly,
Europe is our own making. Europe will be what we
wish it to be. The problem is that all of a sudden we
faced the prospect of a Europe of 40 plus countries,
so it therefore became a matter of heated debate
about what Europe is and what sort of Europe we
would like to have.
Contractually speaking, there is obviously Article
49 of the Treaty on European Union, which says
that a European applicant country has to be European.
It has to be democratic and accept all existing
European legislation and treaties as is. In other words
there is no "a la carte" membership. You cannot say, I
recognise that Ukraine has the same rights. So we are
in the process of defining what the European Union is
going to be. Is the European Union going to spread its
membership, embracing more and more countries,
following more or less the first concept of Europe
being a process and a certain instrument for advancing
some norms of political conduct, some basic values,
some good governance principles? Or is Europe
going to be a political entity in all its dimensions?
Is the European Union going
to spread its membership, embracing
more and more countries, following
more or less the first concept
of Europe being a process and
a certain instrument for advancing
some norms of political conduct,
some basic values, some good
governance principles?
These two concepts will not be easily reconciled
if Europe decides to treat itself as a political project.
Almost inevitably we will have to confront an evergrowing
tendency to form an inner circle in Europe.
This "core" Europe will try to coordinate policy based
on much greater cohesion in political, economic and
even conceptual terms.
So I think that we are now in a very formative
period in our discussion on Europe and that at present
it would be very difficult indeed to define Europe.
That is why I regrettably decline and must disappoint
the chairman of this panel.
am going to be a member now but I will object to
what has already been agreed by the European Union
later on. This of course led to a discussion about
whether we promote democracy and stability, which
means no borders in Europe, or do we promote the
inner cohesion of the European Union, which means
we stop enlargement with Romania and Bulgaria
included.
There are two main concepts that we need to
look at to see if they are a panacea to this ongoing
problem. One is the wider Europe initiative. This is
not a simple in-or-out alternative. It is the Union
offering more than pure partnership but less than
membership. This is an interesting concept, because
there is a pooling of all the instruments, namely the
partnership agreements, association agreements,
Europe agreements, the Barcelona Process. All these
are pooled into a concept and you graduate from one
49
Cem Duna
Member of the Board,
Turkish Industrialists’ and
Businessmen's Association
(TUSIAD); former
Ambassador and
Permanent Delegate
of Turkey to the European
Union, Istanbul

to the other so it becomes an ongoing process. This is
a very interesting project for the short term, but for
the medium to long term this is no panacea, because
it does not really define the borders as such and you
will always have this discussion over who comes in
and who does not come in. So this still leaves the issue
of the ultimate borders unresolved.
Then there is the EU Constitutional Treaty. The
draft Constitution as it stands today repeats Article
49 of the present treaty but adds to it subjects like
new values, human dignity and what have you. It
enlarges the definition of Europe but it does not
include the borders of Europe, so it will have very limited
impact on future enlargements.
I would now like to come to the topic of Turkey
because this has been at the heart of all the discussions
on what Europe is all about. From the beginning,
Turkey has been a member of all the European
organisations, like NATO, OSCE, the Council of
Europe, etc. Turkey has not been a member of the
Organisation of African Unity or the Arab League
and this is clearly a very important issue. Also, we
must bear in mind the important fact that we define
Europe as a compilation of laws and regulations, the
rule of law and contractual obligations. In this
regard, Turkey's candidacy and its eligibility have
been reaffirmed by the European bodies time and
again. Yet at the same time we see a discussion by
European politicians whether it is doable. So there is
an inherent paradox. There is a lack of communication
between the European Union bodies and the
European Union politicians. I cannot understand
how it is possible that Europe on the one hand defines
itself through the rule of law and the acquis communautaire
and all that sort of thing, and on the other
hand discusses this endlessly, which definitely is a
great disservice to the credibility of the European
Union delivering on what it has promised.
There are many arguments for and against
Turkey. Let us take the geographical argument. Well,
if you look at the European part of Turkey, Thrace, it
is far bigger than some of the European member
countries and more populous than, say, Denmark. If
you look again at the geographical argumentation,
Europe has, as of 1 May 2004, taken in Cyprus. Well,
Cyprus is east of Ankara and south of Tunis. How do
50
Turkey's candidacy and its eligibility
have been reaffirmed by the European
bodies time and again.
you explain that? So geographic descriptions can be
extremely misleading.
I will not go into the religious and cultural arguments,
because I do not think there is much of an
argumentation there. It is probably a lack of understanding
about the core values of the European
Union as such, richness in diversity and the like.
I think that it is best to leave the issue of future
borders unresolved at this point in time because this
is a very serious carrot driving the reform process in
neighbouring countries. However, it is very difficult to
see how this is going to unfold in the future and this
brings us back to what I said at the beginning about
Norman Davies's opening dictum. What do you stand
for? What are the binding elements of the European
project and the concept related thereto. I think the
new constitution is important and should better
explain the political notion of Europe, culminating in
a new European order.
But the debate over Europe is far more than
Europe itself. It has a great spillover effect. About two
months ago, I was in Iraq and I found it most surprising
that people there do not look at Turkey as a
great success story. They do not look at Turkey as a
model for them, or as a bridge between East and
West. But they do look at Turkey with amazement.
For them, Turkey is an Islamic country that has been
able to change itself, to reform itself to such an extent
that it can actually become a candidate and a future
member of the European Union. For them, this is the
sum of all their problems. For them, an Islamic country
being able to change itself to such an extent is
almost science fiction. But the opposite is also true. If
Turkey is not given what it is promised, the message it
will send will be extremely negative in that it will vindicate
their suspicions, which have been there all
along.
In Turkey, we have reached the critical mass
needed for becoming a member of the European
Union. Critical mass is a very interesting concept.
Once you reach critical mass you cannot stay there,
you have to change. So, if you can change for the better
by becoming a member of the European Union,
or whatever, you have another balance at the higher
level. But you cannot sustain the old rhetoric because
if you cannot change for the better, you go sliding
downwards. I think the same question holds true for
Europe, whether Europe has been able to reach critical
mass to redefine its global position and its global
responsibilities, because if it does, then we will have a
truly global Europe.

The Changing
Global Context
If we want to understand what this concept of
Europe is, we have to also ask what roles different
groups of countries in the world will play. What will
be the role of the European Union or NATO? What
role will the United States play? What will Russia be?
Will it be a regional power or a global power? What
role will China want to play? As the European Union
moves eastward and southward, we find different
countries and different interests and here we have to
define what kind of player the European Union wants
to be. If we want to be a global player, we have to be
united and strong. To be strong means more countries,
more economic power, and more citizens. But it
is difficult to find an answer at this moment, because
it is difficult to know what they are thinking in Berlin
or Paris, or what London will want to say about this
enlargement. We are speaking about Europe but, in
fact, there are more perceptions of Europe than just
one single approach.
Until the end of the Cold War, the European
Union was, more or less, a sort of fortress. The reaction
of the European Commission, which introduced
the European Neighbourhood Policy, was a very clear
one. The European Union is no longer a fortress and
of course the Cold War is over. But if we are speaking
about enlargement and the countries that sooner or
later will become members of the EU, we have to
understand that we are speaking about perceptions
and about the capacity of the citizens of the EU to
understand what enlargement means. We are asking
the new countries and the new candidates to know
what the EU means, but we also have to ask the citizens
of the EU what extension means to them and to
what degree they want to accept this extension.
For Romania, there are a few areas in which we
are very interested to continue the process of enlargement
and I will speak first about Ukraine. We are very
interested in seeing democratic development in
Ukraine and are sure that this will solve a part of our
problems with them. We have a problem with the border
on the Black Sea and we think it will be easier to
solve this problem inside the EU, rather than keeping
Ukraine out of this process. Last February, Romania
and Ukraine signed a neighbourhood programme for
more integration and more cooperation. For us, it is a
desirable goal to see Ukraine closer to the EU and
closer to NATO. Both Romania and Ukraine hope to
convince the Republic of Moldova to become closer
to the EU because what we are seeing are some statements
but in fact they are not moving toward the
West. They are moving more and more toward the
East and the economic situation is not so good.
Ukraine knows very well that Romania is a strong
supporter for its European aspirations and we will
continue to support this.
Speaking about Turkey, I discovered this morning,
while having breakfast with Ambassador Duna,
that we have a personal reason to encourage Turkey
to become a member of the EU. His son is doing business
in Romania and this is a good example of the
strong links between the countries in the area. If you
keep Turkey out of the EU, the economic problems of
the area will not be solved. There is a lot of business
from Turkey outside of Turkey and we have to keep
this business open and develop it.
Turkey raises some questions. Why is Turkey
good in NATO, but not good in the European Union?
NATO is an area of common values and Turkey is
part of this process and we have to understand and
explain to our population that it is normal to see
Turkey as a member of the European Union.
At the same time, we are looking carefully to see
Israel and Egypt become members of the EU, maybe
sometime in the future, and we consider this something
useful for everybody. Two days ago, the President
of Georgia was in Romania and Mr. Mikhail
Saakashvili said that his country is very interested in
joining NATO and he is looking forward to seeing if
it is possible to join the EU. So there are new countries
that are coming and thinking about their intention
to join the EU.
Until the end of the Cold War,
the European Union was, more
or less, a sort of fortress.
The reaction of the European
Commission, which introduced the
European Neighbourhood Policy,
was a very clear one. The European
Union is no longer a fortress.
Let me now talk briefly about the role of the
media in this process. I think we have a great role to
play in this process and we have to contribute toward
a better understanding of the differences between our
countries, our cultures, and our citizens. Radio Romania
is trying to play this role and to contribute to the
stabilisation of the area. We are organising "radio
bridges", first of all with business people from Romania
and Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria. We are now
trying it with Turkey and I have discussed it with the
director-general of Turkish Radio and the directorgeneral
of Radio Kol Israel. We try to bring business
people together to explain how to do business in both
countries. If we start with business, the culture will
come later and the politics will solve everything.
51
Dragos Seuleanu
President/CEO, Romanian
Radio Broadcasting
Corporation (ROR),
Bucharest

Miguel Ángel
Bastenier
Editor for International
Affairs, El País, Madrid
Coming to an end, I want to say that if we look
at the enlargement of the EU, if we look at the new
borders of the EU, we have to think that more things
will be changed. We have to redefine NATO. We have
Of Obvious and Not
So Obvious Borders
In trying to answer Mr. Peter Preston's question,
"What is Europe?", I would say that for my newspaper,
El País, and for me, Europe is an idea, a political
idea that may or not be fulfilled one day. It is an
idea with borders. The enlargement of 1 May 2004
has created new borders and somehow influenced or
modified old ones. I would like to try to do a sort of
taxonomy, if I dare to use that word, of borders. I
would say that Europe has four different kinds of
borders. First, the obvious ones. Secondly, we have
the not so obvious ones. Then, the forgotten borders
and, finally, the hidden borders.
What are the obvious borders? They are all in
the East: Bulgaria and Romania, which will very likely
join the European Union in 2007, the rest of
Eastern Europe, the Balkans, Russia, and Turkey.
These will be the obvious borders.
My paper has a very political point of view on
this. When I say that Europe is an idea to be fulfilled,
I mean the idea of a certain degree of unification. I
do not know whether this unification should be federal,
confederal, or what, but there should be a much
larger degree of political unification than we have
now. The current Spanish government is very much in
favour of this kind of political unification. In this
respect, my paper has always defended the idea of
Turkish accession to the European Union. We think
that it is a very important issue, because it would
prove that Europe has grown up, that Europe is capable
of real tolerance; that Europe is not isolationist.
We defended the idea that in the European Constitution
there should be no mention of Christianity. That
may possibly surprise some of you, thinking of Spain,
that old Catholic country and all that, but we think
that you can be Catholic and European at the same
time and there is no problem whatsoever with that.
If we look at the not so obvious borders, we find
these in the south and in the west. In the south, we
have what will very likely be the most important border,
apart from Turkey, for the next 20 or something
years to come, and that is North Africa. We have the
chance in Europe to heal a scar, to change things, to
create a new, unified space in the Mediterranean
52
to redefine the United Nations, and we have to redefine
the whole context in which we are living. The EU
is changing the global context of existence.
north and south. I do not mean necessarily that the
North African Arab countries should join the European
Union. That remains to be seen, but should
remember that Morocco made its first bid to join the
European Union already in the 1980s. It was, very
likely, a tactical move, but we should at the very least
be able to create a different kind of relationship with
North Africa in order to satisfy them, to satisfy ourselves,
and to end an extremely great problem, at least
for Spain and Italy, namely the problem of immigration.
I am not saying that no immigrants should be
allowed into Europe. What I am saying is that this
should be regulated in the clearest possible way, and
satisfactorily for both sides. I do not think we could
possibly say that we want a Fortress Europe, the idea
that no one should be allowed to enter our privileged
realm or that we should be impervious to any foreign
influence. That is nonsense. We should really be
against this so-called Fortress Europe.
In the west there is another not so obvious border
with Latin America. The ocean is a kind of border,
too. Again, I do not say that one day Latin America
should join the European Union, but let me tell
you how eager Latin America is to have a special relationship
with Europe. While we have been engrossed
in enlargement, we have not paid enough attention to
Latin America. They need us as much as we need
Turkey and Turkey needs us, if only to counterbalance
what will very likely remain their most important
link to the north. You all know who I mean.
Europe is an idea, a political idea
that may or not be fulfilled one day.
It is an idea with borders.
With regard to the forgotten borders, there are, I
think, two semi-forgotten borders in Europe. The first
is Norway, dreaming of oil and solitude, and thinking
that they can go it alone for many, many years. Maybe
they can. I should point out that enlargement has
somehow helped to strengthen the centrifugal forces
in Europe and that if Norway stays too long outside
of Europe, it could be a sort of inspiration for other

Scandinavian countries in case things turn out badly
in Europe. Therefore, to close that void would be so
very important.
The other nearly forgotten border is Switzerland,
the eternal geopolitical exception. Will Switzerland
remain for years to come the country that is not
a member of anything? Well, I hope not.
And last but not least, the hidden border. The
hidden border is the Channel. Can we say that Europe
is complete without a fully integrated Britain? Can we
say that Britain is fully integrated with itself halfway
between the Atlantic and the European Union? Of
course, Britain is a member of the European Union,
but there will be sometime in 2005 or 2006 a referendum
on whether Britain should accept the European
Constitution. Everybody knows that in real terms
that would be a referendum on remaining in Europe.
I am not saying that if the referendum is lost, Mr.
Blair will take Britain out of the European Union.
Very likely this would not happen, but at the same
time we need Britain to make up its mind whether it
wants to fully integrate in Europe or not. Of course,
my paper and I are completely convinced that we
need Britain. That there is no Europe without Britain.
There is no possibility of thinking of a real, united,
politically meaningful Europe without Britain.
To sum up, all these border issues will have to be
solved one way or another for Europe to be complete.
Let us hope that this takes place in due time, say, no
more than two or three centuries.
53

MONDAY 17 May 2004
Holding Member States
of IGOs to their Press
Freedom Commitments
Chairperson and Introduction
Andrew Puddephatt,
Executive Director,
ARTICLE 19,
London
Panelists
Miklos Haraszti,
OSCE Representative on Freedom
of the Media, Vienna
Raymond Louw,
Editor and Publisher,
Southern Africa Report,
Johannesburg
Paschal Mooney,
General Rapporteur on the Media,
Parliamentary Assembly,
Council of Europe,
Strasbourg
Henrikas Yushkiavitshus,
former Assistant Director-General
for Communication,
Information and Informatics,
UNESCO, Paris

How Effective Are They?
One of the great American achievements of
the 20th Century is the founding of the
United Nations and the creation of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, both of which are
unimaginable without the contribution and the
backing of the United States government at that time.
Because of that rather wonderful innovation after the
Second World War, we now have a whole series of
international human rights standards and instruments
and international institutions designed to support
those standards and instruments. And within all
the range of human rights values and standards that
there are, freedom of expression has always been,
from the earliest meetings of the General Assembly,
one of the most valued human rights and one that is
seen as a foundation and a guarantor of the realisation
of other human rights and democratic freedoms.
Because, if we cannot express ourselves, than there is
very little else we can do in the world in achieving the
kinds of values that we have been talking about at this
conference.
There are plenty of standards
and there are plenty of institutions.
The real question is
how effective are they?
Now freedom of expression is not a right
peculiar to journalists. There are a number of
journalists who think that it is "their" right. It is not.
Freedom of expression is a human right that belongs
to everybody and it is important that every human
being has the right to freedom of expression. The
media are important because a free, independent
media can give a public dimension to the individual
right to the freedom of expression. After all, I can
express what views I like in my bathroom with a tap
running and that is fairly meaningless in the terms of
political discourse. For my right to free expression to
have meaning, I need to see my views and the views of
others expressed and debated freely and exchanged in
the public media so that they can become part of the
currency of political debate. That is why the existence
of a free media is seen as very important to the freedom
of expression and why a number of freedom of
expression standards pay particular regard to safeguarding
the existence of an independent, plural and
diverse media.
There are also a whole range of institutions that
have been created to support freedom of expression
and support an independent media. The United
Nations Commission on Human Rights, for
example, has established the post of Special
Rapporteur [on the Promotion and Protection of the
Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression], held
by Ambeyi Ligabo at the moment. The Special
Rapporteur has the job of globally monitoring
freedom of expression violations and that office is a
point of appeal for anybody in this room who believes
that their media is under attack from a government or
faced with threats of censorship.
But it is not just the United Nations with its
global reach. There are a number of regional bodies
and regional organisations that have adopted their
own human rights standards and their own
mechanisms. The Inter-American Commission on
Human Rights, for example. There is an American
Convention on Human Rights and the Inter-
American Commission has its own Special Rapporteur
[for Freedom of Expression], currently Eduardo
Bertoni, formerly Santiago Cantón, who plays a very
vigorous role in protecting free expression in the
Americas. The Council of Europe, in Europe, has the
European Convention on Human Rights. This is the
most significant regional human rights treaty because
there is a court at Strasbourg that can enforce judgements
against member states. Every country that is a
signatory to the Council of Europe is bound by its
provisions and they are afforded freedom of expression
protection within the European Convention on
Human Rights. The Council of Europe, itself, has
a number of mechanisms to further support freedom
of expression.
The Organization for Security and Cooperation
in Europe (OSCE) also has a special rapporteur
designed to promote and protect freedom of expresion.
The OSCE Representative on Freedom of the
Media, Miklos Haraszti, is present here today. Again
that is an important protection that extends way
across Europe into Central Asia. UNESCO has an
important division that deals with media freedom and
freedom of expression and has done some extremely
valuable work in supporting that area. And a growing
number of other institutions are also beginning to
look at this area and recognising that, in development
terms, it is important to have a free and independent
media.
There are plenty of standards and there are
plenty of institutions. The real question is how
effective are they? As you probably know, in any international
institution the main power that is invested in
that body is the power to monitor, the power to
report, and the power to secure publicity for its
reports and its monitoring recommendations. And so
a key element of any mechanism is whether the existing
institutions are playing that monitoring and
reporting role vigorously and independently, and are
you [journalists] writing about it? Because they can
report all they like, but if you do not write about it, it
has no public effect and governments could ignore it.
55
Andrew Puddephatt
Executive Director,
ARTICLE 19, London

Raymond Louw
Editor and Publisher,
Southern Africa Report,
Johannesburg
So there are two questions here. Are people
represented on this panel doing their bit and are you,
sitting in the audience, doing your bit? Can these
mechanisms be strengthened and improved? What do
these mechanisms actually offer journalists and
media professionals like yourselves? What can people
like yourselves do to actually more usefully promote
An African View
What do inter-governmental organisations
(IGOs) that uphold press freedom and
freedom of expression do about enforcing compliance
with these principles? What does one do about
governments that do not live up to their obligations
under the various charters and covenants upholding
press freedom and freedom of expression?
The problem is worldwide and to their shame
many of the advanced Western democracies have been
lax about living up to their commitments on this issue.
They have left restrictive legislation on their statute
books, which, even if they do not enforce it, nevertless
remains as a contradiction of their commitments to
press freedom protocols. If they continue to leave this
legislation lying around, ready to be taken up by
anone with an authoritarian bent who comes to
power, what kind of example is this to other coutries,
such as the developing and Third World nations who
also have this kind of restrictive law available to them
and to their shame frequently use it to silence their
critics?
Let me deal with the continent I have some
knowledge of and where these laws are used regularly,
despite most of these states having signed, recognised
and even ratified in some cases press freedom declarations
and charters. For example, nearly all the members
of the African Union have signed the African
Charter on Human and People's Rights, which contains
a freedom of expression clause. It is rather weak
and the African Commission [on Human and People's
Rights] found it necessary to strengthen it so that it
does really provide some real protection for media
freedom. This was done in tough negotiations with
ARTICLE 19 and there are some observers who
believe that the result, a Declaration of Principles [on
Freedom of Expression in Africa], gives a clear
guarantee of media freedom.
Well and good, but how are African states reacting?
Nearly every day I read of some unfortunate
editor or journalist being arrested and imprisoned
under the insult laws, which have become the scourge
of the continent. Some 41 of the 53 nations have these
laws and use them.
56
media freedom? What is it you should stop doing
because it actually hinders media freedom? And there
are a number of things that journalists do that
actually prevent the growth of a culture of media
freedom and a culture for expression. Those are some
of the questions that I hope we will try to answer in
this session.
I could reel off a long list of them. Indeed, they
are contained in an excellent work on the subject by
Prof. Ruth Walden for the World Press Freedom
Committee. Cases like that of Pius Njawe of
Cameroon, who, incidentally, was helped to freedom
by the IPI. He "insulted" President Paul Biya by
reporting that the president had had a heart attack
at a football championship and thus was unable to
present the winning team with the trophy. Another
celebrated case is that of Ali Lmrabet of Morocco,
who earned a four-year sentence for insulting the
King and one of his officials. He was helped to
freedom by the World Press Freedom Committee.
There is little impetus among these states
to review oppressive legislation under the covenants
they have adopted and to get rid of the more
obnoxious items that stifle press freedom. Indeed,
their record, with a few exceptions, is poor. Kenya
and Egypt have gotten rid of their insult laws, and
South Africa retains only criminal defamation,
although that is bad enough.
Many of these countries have adopted or shown
recognition of Article 19 of the Universal Declartion
of Human Rights, the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights, the Windhoek Declaration,
the American Convention on Human Rights and the
European Convention on Human Rights. That is a
large selection of press freedom declarations and one
would have thought that the governments would have
tried to abide by them. In practice, they barely
acknowledge the role of the media.
I mentioned the African Union's Declaration of
Principles that it was cajoled into by ARTICLE 19.
But let us also look at NEPAD (New Partnership for
Africa's Development). This is an ambitious,
grandiose plan, devised by the heads of several states
in Africa-among them South Africa's Thabo Mbeki,
Nigeria's Olusegun Obasanjo and Algeria's Abdelaziz
Bouteflicka – to try to rescue Africa from growing
economic failure. The idea is that by creating a mechanism
whereby a nation adheres to a set of good governance
principles both in the political and economic
sphere and upholds human rights that nation would

gain access to donor aid and the opening of trade
benefits with the Group of Eight richest nations and
the European Union.
There are many good features in this initiative.
It really does indicate a commitment to uplift Africa.
But one must take note of how the African Union
views the role of the media. It has set up a list of
criteria that are applied to nations who volunteer for
a so-called Peer Review Mechanism. The name
indicates that their practices and conduct will be
reviewed by fellow member governments through
a mechanism comprising a working secretariat, an
eminent persons group and a select body drawn from
the heads of state.
Two of the criteria are the concern of the media;
one that relates to good governance and one
that deals with the promotion of human rights.
Under good governance, the following criteria are
listed: an efficient civil service, effective functioning of
parliament with accountability and an independent
judiciary. That's all. There is no place for the press.
The African Union has clearly not heard of Edmund
Burke's famous reference in the 18 th Century to
"a Fourth Estate more important far than they all."
It does refer to the media under the human
rights criteria, but the reference is qualified by the
term, "responsible journalism", which journalists
reject as being used to limit freedom and to be accomodating
of government views and policies.
I gather that the secretariat dealing with the
criteria believe it is sufficient to mention press
freedom in that context - that is as merely falling
under the "Promotion of Human Rights" criteria.
I say, and I am sure you will all agree, that it is not,
and that a country cannot aspire to a rating of good
governance if there is no specific place for a free and
independent press clearly outlined as a prime requirement.
What worries me about that serious omission is
the standard it sets for other governments in Africa –
and maybe other parts of the world who hear of this
description of good governance by a large grouping
of nations such as the African Union. Does it become
accepted that there is no role for the press in setting
a standard for good governance?
However, the one positive step taken by the
African Union is the ratification of an African Union
court to prosecute and adjudicate on issues of human
rights and good governance and the conduct of member
states. It has only been agreed at this stage and the
rules have yet to be formulated, but it is one step in
the right direction. However, one wonders how
effective it will be if the criteria in the peer review
mechanism is going to be used as the criteria for
recognising the role of the media. I read into that
conduct by the African Union an indication that
those governments pay only lip service to press freedom
and that they have no intention of incorporating
a free and indpendent press in their approach to a
nation's desired values and conduct.
Then we have the extreme case of Zimbabwe,
which has also ratified the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights and the African
Charter. I need not dwell on its recent vicious
conduct against the press. But that is not in accord
with those two covenants; indeed it is a gross
violation of them and one wonders whether the court
that the African Union is going to set up will deal
with Zimbabwe.
The problem is worldwide
and to their shame many
of the advanced Western democracies
have been lax about living up
to their commitments
on this issue.
The African Union has never discussed
Zimbabwe's conduct. President Mbeki told journalists
last year that the issue of Zimbabwe had never
been raised at the AU, because no one had brought
it up. This is similar to the action of the African
group of about ten nations at the United Nations
Human Rights Commission, who constantly block
any attempt by the Commission to send an investigator
to see what is actually happening in Zimbabwe.
So what should be done about Zimbabwe and
others with similar aspirations to act against the
press? I believe there should be some mechanism for
the bodies that maintain the covenants to take action
against them, such as a public withdrawal of the
names of the countries that offend from the list of signatories
or some other action, which will clearly indicate
that they have grossly offended against press freedom
principles.
I will leave the IGOs to decide their manner of
dealing with the problem, but it is my suggestion that
there should be a very public condemnation of those
countries by such an act of withdrawing their
signatures from such documents.
57

Miklos Haraszti
OSCE Representative
on Freedom
of the Media, Vienna
The Role of the OSCE
Representative
Many of you might have known my wonderful
predecessor, Freimut Duve. Less than two
months ago, I took over the position this passionate
and devoted figure practically created or helped
create when, six years ago, it was decided to create
a special Organization for Security and Co-operation
in Europe (OSCE) representative for the freedom
of the media.
In order to explain to those of you who are not
familiar with my organisation, I have to go back
a bit into the past. 1975 was the date when the
OSCE's predecessor, the CSCE, was founded with
the Helsinki Final Act. This was a very controversial
date for my generation of dissidents in Central
and Eastern Europe because, on the one hand, we saw
it as sell-out on some wonderful principles. It was
basically an agreement of NATO and the Warsaw
Pact to acknowledge each other. Thus, the prescription
for free elections in the countries of Eastern
Europe – the only good prescription stemming from
the Yalta agreement of 1945 – was gone. On the other
hand, and this was the good news, the Helsinki Final
Act's famous "third basket", which has provisions
which deal with human rights, including the free
exchange of information, created the very legal basis
for the democratic and free speech movements of that
time in Central and Eastern Europe and in the Soviet
Union.
In Poland, the KOR (Committee for Defence of
the Workers) movement was started in 1976. The
Hungarian Democratic Opposition was started the
same year, and Charter 77 in Czechoslovakia was
formed in 1977. All were based on the Helsinki Final
Act and on the "third basket". Our heroic colleagues
in the Soviet Union were not as lucky as the central
Europeans. Within a year, the Helsinki follow-up
groups were all arrested and imprisoned.
After the dissolution of European Communism
in the 1990s, the CSCE transformed into a security
organisation – the largest in the world – dealing with
a wide-range of security-related issues, including tension-easing,
human rights and democratisation. It has
55 participating States, all of whom, and this is
wonderful news, pledge to be democracies and want
to belong, I believe, to the club of democracies of the
Northern Hemisphere.
When beginning to describe the OSCE's work in
the field of press freedom and the mandate of the
Representative on Freedom of the Media, I would
put first not the most important official task, i.e.,
seeking direct contact with participating States where
breaches of press freedom occur and contributing to
the resolution of the issue. Even if it is the very basis
58
of our work, it is not the most efficient one. The most
efficient one is our possibility to work together with
NGOs and help them to raise sensitivities and shape
the discourse in their own countries. IPI is one of
those great NGOs. ARTICLE 19 is another NGO
with which we have a very good working relationship
and without which we would not be able to work.
The second, and officially the most important
advantage of the mandate of the OSCE Representative
on Freedom of the Media is its right to call on
governments and to raise its voice regarding various
human rights violations, particularly violations of
freedom of expression and press freedom.
The OSCE is an organisation of States,
of 55 participating States.
It is a consensus organisation,
meaning that all States have equal
status and a veto right. Of course,
this slows us down when we call
for wider recomendations.
As mentioned before, the OSCE is an organisation
of States, of 55 participating States. It is a consensus
organisation, meaning that all States have
equal status and a veto right. Of course, this slows us
down when we call for wider recommendations.
It would be politically incorrect to claim that the
OSCE is oriented toward the east, because we are not
supposed to focus on geographical locations. But it
is legitimate, I believe, to say that there are very
different problems in the different regions of the
OSCE. The new democracies have a different set of
problems than the old democracies. For example, at
the western end of the OSCE region, we have the
United States, with its total lack of taxpayer – paid
public television, while in the east we have countries
like Turkmenistan, which has no private media, no
private broadcasting. This extreme variety of human
rights scenes, freedom of the media scenes, nevertheless
demands a unified handling, and the issuing
of recommendations is one of the tools we have at
our disposal. Apart from a violation by violation,
abuse by abuse, handling of cases, there is, of course,
the early-warning function of the Representative,
which is very important and can save lives in many
cases in countries where serious problems caused by
obstruction of media activities or unfavourable
working conditions put journalists' lives in danger.
The third capacity of the Representative is
strategic work. For example, my predecessor Freimut
Duve joined together with IPI and ARTICLE 19 to
press for the decriminalisation of defamation or libel

laws. This is an important subject for the OSCE
region because in the western part of the OSCE truly
independent courts apply these ancient laws –
although prison sentences for defamation and libel
always have a chilling effect on journalists, even in the
western world. But in the eastern part of the OSCE
region, not at all independent courts apply these very
laws while referring to western examples. Therefore,
a unified recommendation in this respect would help
the eastern countries if only the western countries
would take to heart those recommendations.
Just to mention another strategic issue, we are
also looking at the precarious nature of the Internet,
The Council of Europe suffers, I think, from
a confusion in the public mind and, probably
even in the media’s mind. I find whenever I am talking
to people about going to Strasbourg, they say,
"Well, you're going to the European Union," and I
say, "No, the European Union is there as well, but the
Council of Europe was there long before them and,
in fact, has been there since 1949." There are 45 member
countries, all of who are obliged to fulfil some
basic standards of democracy, rule of law and human
rights. Certain countries of Eastern Europe who
joined the organisation did so with very immature
democracies and many problems, but it was felt
that it was far better to have these countries involved
as members in order to ensure a constant
dialogue and to enable them to take better advantage
of the different mechanisms that the Council of
Europe put in place in order to enhance the democratic
process.
Now, at the same time, there is a system of
monitoring commitments of member states.
A special committee of the Parliamentary Assembly,
the Monitoring Committee, is responsible for
verifying the fulfilment of obligations assumed by
member states under the terms of the statute of the
the spread of hate speech on the Internet, and the
need to protect the freedom of the new forms of
media while taking into consideration anti-terrorism
and national security concerns.
Finally, I would like to mention my plan, sometime
next year, to start a new OSCE wide campaign to
promote the rights of journalists and every citizen's
right to information. In too many countries in the
OSCE, particularly in the new democracies, secrecy
laws and the classification of information by governments
is obstructing the work of journalists. The citizen's
right to information is one that journalists can
make special use of in the service of all citizens.
The Council of Europe's
Monitoring Procedure
Certain countries of Eastern Europe
who joined the organisation did so
with very immature democracies and
many problems, but it was felt that it
was far better to have these countries
involved as members in order to ensure
a constant dialogue.
Council of Europe, the European Convention on
Human Rights and all other Council of Europe conventions
to which they are parties. At the same time,
the Parliamentary Assembly decided to pursue the
dialogue with the national authorities in certain issues
mentioned in resolutions adopted. Now, it is a rather
secretive process. Those of you involved in the world
of journalism will be familiar with the policy of the
International Red Cross in that they establish private
dialogue with governments and they feel that they are
more effective, although, as you will also be aware,
they broke with precedent recently in relation to Iraq.
It is one of the flaws that I feel is in the monitoring
procedure of the Council of Europe in that it rarely
divulges its conclusions in public. Sometimes,
perhaps, that should not be the case, because unless
you put public pressure on governments they sometimes
can feel quite happy in the knowledge that they
can be monitored but there is not going to be any
ultimate sanction as such.
However, the range of issues being monitored is
very wide. Freedom of expression is a very important
aspect among many and it is clear that the importance
of the media and the power that they have is
growing. That is why the Committee on Culture,
Science and Education and in particular the Sub-
Committee on the Media, of which I am a member,
made monitoring of freedom of expression its central
task. The present chairman of the Sub-Committee is
Professor Josef Jarab from the Czech Republic and he
presented a report on media and democratic culture
in 1999 and there have been subsequent reports in the
whole area of freedom of expression and of the
media in Europe.
59
Paschal Mooney
General Rapporteur
on the Media,
Parliamentary Assembly,
Council of Europe,
Strasbourg

I might add at this point that the function of
a General Rapporteur on the Media was created
in 2001 by the Committee and approved by the Parliamentary
Assembly because it was felt that it was
important to have somebody who could follow
developments on a permanent basis and report back
to the Committee which can then decide what
adequate political action to recommend. In urgent
situations, the General Rapporteur can also issue
statements or take action individually, the standard
procedure being to write immediately to the head
of the Parliamentary Delegation to the Council of
Europe of the country concerned. As I have said
earlier, the monitoring procedure is confidential
during the preparatory stage. Because of that, it was
felt that a parliamentarian backed by a parliamentary
committee and sometimes the entire Assembly should
be able to intervene publicly whenever it is needed.
In that context, I was asked by the Committee to
prepare a report on public service broadcasting,
which was presented and passed unanimously by the
Parliamentary Assembly at its plenary session in
January of this year. I have to say that in the course
of that report it became apparent to me that the
threat to the continuing independence of public service
broadcasting in all parts of Europe is real and
growing. I appreciate that it is somewhat separate to
the printed media, but I think that the principles
undermining public service broadcasting and the
journalist's ethos within us would be similar to that
which you would experience in your own day-to-day
work.
The threat is coming as much from the commercial
sector, which for its own reasons, valid or otherwise,
is attacking the whole concept of public service
broadcasting, the financing by state governments
either directly or indirectly, as somehow a threat to
competition and to a levelling of the playing field.
But what in effect it is doing is that it is putting pressure
on the governments to introduce more repressive
legislation. I use the word repressive in the context
of diluting the right of public service media
organisations to investigate and to take an independent
line.
Perhaps the most famous example of that
in recent times has been the position of the BBC
following the Hutton Inquiry. There is no doubt
whatsoever but that the BBC has been damaged, not
fatally, but its reputation has been damaged as
a result. But, more importantly, what has happened is
that because it operates under a charter and where the
government is ultimately responsible for the provisions
of that charter, the fallout from the Hutton
Inquiry has meant that the discussions and debates
surrounding the renewal of the next charter, next
year, has now centred on how much independence the
BBC should have or how much more accountability
should be required. All of these factors are filtering
down, and trickling down to the journalist working
60
on the ground as to whether they should or should
not go so far in their line of questioning or investigation.
Of course, they would argue against that and
there are some journalists within the BBC who would
say that they have been strengthened as a result of the
flaws that were found in the reporting procedures. But
there is no doubt but that the threat is real.
Currently, I am working on a report on the
Italian situation, which you will be familiar with,
in that all sides to the debate will agree there is an
anomaly and that is a word that the Italians themselves
use. The anomaly being that you have a very
powerful media magnate who controls, through
a company called Mediaset, 51 per cent of the Italian
television market, and who at the same time is the
elected Prime Minister under whose watch comes
the responsibility for RAI, the Italian state broadcaster.
His government would be responsible through
amechanism for the appointment of the board
of governors of RAI – RAI, by the way, being the
main competitor of Mediaset. The report is investigating
whether in fact there are any possible abuses
and monopolisation of power as a result of this
anomaly. It will be adopted at a meeting of my Committee
at the end of this month and will then go
before the full Parliamentary Assembly in June. The
reason I raise this is that because Italy is a functioning
democracy, a founder member of the Council
of Europe and one of its main contributors, it is vital
that Italy be seen publicly to uphold the principles
that underpin the Council of Europe, primarily
because of what you have heard earlier from
the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the
Media in that there are many countries in Central and
Eastern Europe who are increasingly referring to
what they call the Berlusconization of the media and
if Italy can get away with alleged abuses then why
can't they.
The Committee on Culture,
Science and Education and
in particular the Sub−Committee
on the Media, of which I am
a member, made monitoring
of freedom of expression
its central task.
That is why this particular report is not only
sensitive but vital in establishing the basics under
which Italy participates as a functioning democracy,
as a member of the Council of Europe and the obligations
that are contained in the various treaties and
conventions that they have entered into. I am not in
any way wishing to pre-empt the results of the debate,
which is to take place over the next month to five
weeks, but I am hopeful that at the end of the day that
we will have established that there are certain obligations
that must be followed even by functioning,
developed democracies. It is not only about Central

and Eastern Europe, because increasingly in Western
Europe there are more and more examples of intrusions
on the independence of the media.
There is also the question of the media and its
freedom of expression in time of war. There is no
doubt whatsoever but that the old cliché, that truth is
the first casualty in war, could not be more relevant.
Because we have perhaps the freest media and the
most widespread access to the media in all its forms
ever in civilisation, the question is whether we are
being told more; are we being better informed as a
result of the plurality of the media? It is obvious that
we are not, because as news keeps coming out, for
example in Iraq, it seems that there are other agendas
that are being pursued, particularly where questions
of national security come into being. Particularly in
America, there was a feeling for a long time that once
war was declared it was not right and proper to question
American policy. It has only been in recent
months that the American media has stirred itself to
any degree and to start questioning and to take the
role that it traditionally has taken.
I would also add that the European Court of
Human Rights remains a bulwark against repression.
It is unique in that it allows citizens to petition the
Council and there have been many landmark judgements.
However, the process is also deeply flawed and
is in urgent need of reform. A reform process is
currently underway in the Council of Europe, primarily
because of the large number of petitions
The fundamental principle of the free flow of
information is inscribed in the first article of the
UNESCO Constitution. Yet, for an intergovernmental
organisation with currently 190 members, it has
not been easy to uphold this principle throughout the
60 odd years of its existence. Different countries have
different political systems, traditions and attitudes
toward press freedom.
That is why UNESCO's partnership with such
steadfast promoters of freedom of expression as IPI,
the World Press Freedom Committee, the International
Federation of Journalists, the World Association
of Newspapers, the Committee to Protect Journalists,
ARTICLE 19 and the Inter-American Press
Association has been instrumental in helping
UNESCO to be, over the past 15 years, at the forefront
of the worldwide fight for press freedom.
Almost every year throughout the 1990s,
UNESCO, in cooperation with media NGOs and
professional organisations, was holding seminars and
before the courts that have built up over the last number
of years, now running into many thousands.
The timescale for dealing with these petitions has
become longer and longer, and I am sure you are all
familiar with the old story about justice delayed is justice
denied. The Council of Europe Parliamentary
Assembly and its Committees are working toward
reforming that particular process.
Could I just finally say that the added value of
being General Rapporteur for the Media attached
to the Council of Europe is its parliamentary dimension;
being able to work directly with colleagues who
are responsible for adoption and changes in the
legislation and who are often influential figures in the
parliamentary majority and the opposition of their
countries. Many former members of the Parliametary
Assembly of the Council of Europe are present
government ministers and many present parliamentary
members are former or future government ministers.
In fact, one of my colleagues on the Committee
on Legal Affairs and Human Rights is now currently
the minister in a new government in Azerbaijan. So I
think an extra dimension that maybe is not open to
other organisations within Europe at a regional level
is the vital importance of that parliamentary link,
which permits me and indeed anybody in this position
to not only go in and investigate issues which
affect freedom of expression in the media but also
to publicly state whether there are breaches of
the Convention.
UNESCO at the Forefront
conferences for the promotion of independent and
pluralistic media in the different regions of the world.
Each of those conferences – in Windhoek, Alma Ata,
Santiago de Chile, Sana'a and Sofia – was an important
step towards helping the professional community
and the public at large realise that without free
media there can be no real democracy.
This advocacy went along with practical aid.
UNESCO has implemented dozens of communication
projects in all parts of the world. An independent
newspaper distribution network in Serbia,
independent radio and TV stations in Sarajevo,
community radio stations in Africa, the Philippines
and East Timor, journalists' training programmes
in Latin America, assistance in drafting democratic
media laws – these are just a few examples of
UNESCO's action in favour of democratic media
development.
However, this action would be much stronger if
all Members Sates followed the principles that they
61
Henrikas
Yushkiavitshus
former Assistant
Director−General
for Communication,
Information and Informatics,
UNESCO, Paris

themselves had adopted. Indeed, the General Conference
of UNESCO, that is all its 190 Member States,
approved the Declarations of Windhoek, Alma Ata,
Santiago, Sana'a and Sofia. At the initiative of
UNESCO, the United Nations proclaimed 3 May as
International Press Freedom Day. Yet individual
countries, when faced with a concrete situation, do
not always act accordingly.
One major test for UNESCO's adherence to the
principle of the free flow of ideas was in 1997, when
it awarded its first World Press Freedom Prize to a
jailed Chinese journalist, Gao Yu. Federico Mayor,
the then Director-General, had to withstand great
political pressure and even threats of withdrawal
from UNESCO.
At the time, as Assistant Director-General for
Communication and Information, I visited the U.S.
State Department, which welcomed UNESCO's position
on the matter. They liked it very much, I must tell
you. I suggested then that they intervene on the forthcoming
visit by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of
China to the United States, in order to obtain the
release of Gao Yu, who was seriously ill at the time. I
hoped that something would happen, but I never had
any feedback.
Before the terrorist attacks of September 11, the
Director-General of UNESCO, Koichiro Matsuura,
had been warning the world about the nature of the
Taliban regime in Afghanistan. At the time,
UNESCO was not able to prevent the destruction of
the unique Buddha statues in Afghanistan, but the
organisation had already made clear that there is a
very fine line between the destruction of cultural
heritage and the killing of people. Dealing with such
challenges would have been easier if the organisation
was strongly and heavily supported by its Member
States.
Apparently, the logic of the same Member
States differs from one international organisation to
another. Thus, the United States, which withdrew
from UNESCO primarily because of the "New World
Information and Communications Order", has
remained largely indifferent to the fact that the same
62
Regretfully, the issues of freedom
of expression and freedom
of the press are no longer high
on the agenda of politicians.
"New Order" is still very much alive at the UN Information
Committee.
You may ask why I am citing the example of the
United States. It is very simple. For many years, that
country has been a model in the field of press freedom.
Secondly, the U.S. press was always well represented
in IPI.
However, this image of freedom promoter may
no longer be impeccable.
During the preparations for the World Summit
on the Information Society (WSIS), the U.S. and Russia
proposed the same text for the final document,
which, out of security considerations could limit freedom
of expression on the Internet. Luckily, at the last
moment it was changed.
In this context, it is often necessary to remind
decision – makers that fighting criminals on the highways
does not imply closing down the highways themselves.
The same is true for the "information highways".
The same Member States, which in UNESCO
supported declarations on press freedom and freedom
of expression, tried to drop all reference to Article
19 of the Universal Declaration on Human
Rights during the preparations for the WSIS.
The fact that the draft WSIS documents represented
a modernised version of the "New World
Information and Communication Order" did not disturb
most of the governments. Quite the opposite,
there appeared to be a happy consensus among them
on the subject. Paradoxically, neither did it disturb
the press itself; the preparations for the WSIS were
very poorly covered in the media.
Indeed, times have changed. Today we see happy
family photographs featuring leaders from the
West and East. This new phenomenon represents
a unique chance for the world to advance on many
issues. It is good to know that our leaders have a common
understanding of the danger of terrorism
in the world. However, what about freedom of expression?
It would be interesting to know if Berlusconi,
Blair, Bush and Putin share the same views
on this subject.
Regretfully, the issues of freedom of expression
and freedom of the press are no longer high on the
agenda of politicians. But can we blame it all on the
politicians? I do not think so. Articles on press freedom
in the world press are a rarity. If the press does
not care about its own freedom, who will?

MONDAY 17 May 2004
Implementing Good
Journalistic Practices
Chairperson and Introduction
Hanoch Marmari,
former Editor-in-Chief,
Ha'aretz, Tel Aviv
Keynote Speaker
Frank Ovaitt,
Co-Chairman, Institute for Public Relations;
Managing Director, Crossover International,
McLean, VA
Panelists
Mark Damazer,
Deputy Director, BBC News, London
Andrzej Krajewski,
Director, Press Freedom
Monitoring Centre (CMWP);
and Vice President,
Polish Journalists' Association, Warsaw
Tomasz Lis,
former Editor-in-Chief, Fakty-TVN, Warsaw
Adam Michnik,
Editor-in-Chief, Gazeta Wyborcza, Warsaw
Bill Mitchell,
Editor, Poynter Online, Poynter Institute,
St. Petersburg, FL
Yoshio Murakami,
Advisor/International Affairs,
Asahi Shimbun, Tokyo

Our Never-Ending Efforts
The question that usually comes up is who will
protect the honest journalist from corrupt
owners; who will defend the journalist from his editors
who prevent the publication of worthy material
for non-journalistic reasons – commercial, political or
personal. Usually, we tend to ask who will defend an
honest journalist from his over-ambitious editors.
From his story being stretched way beyond its
bounds, being given a headline that is exaggerated or
even false, and which will harm his reputation and his
standing vis-a-vis the subject of his coverage or his
sources.
Usually, we tend to identify with the honest
journalist who tries to stand up in the face of pressure
from his editors. But the Jayson Blair affair at The
New York Times has caused us, as it has caused every
daily newspaper in the world, I presume, to sweat and
to wonder how a newspaper of integrity can protect
itself from a reporter who is dishonest. And because I
consider my newspaper to be a publication of integrity,
I wonder whether this could also happen to us?
Blair is not a unique or exceptional phenomenon.
The U.S. press, which we hold up as a model of
professionalism, courage and determination to
expose what others try to hide from the public, also
succeeds in producing rotten apples. As great as its
achievements are, so sometimes are its failures.
What impels people like Stephen Glass, who fabricated
dozens of stories for The New Republic, to
lead his own paper and his editors astray? What
caused the admired and veteran foreign correspondent,
Jack Kelley of USA Today, to fabricate stories,
to plagiarise and to falsify testimonies? Is it the huge
media reverberation of a journalistic scoop, the sweet
reward for the achievement, and the professional
esteem and glory, that can lead a journalist to violate
all accepted journalistic norms?
Was it the model of success of Bob Woodward
and Carl Bernstein at Ben Bradlee's Washington Post
that led an enthusiastic young journalist, Janet
Cooke, to fabricate the story about Jimmy, an eightyear-old
heroin addict, in order to win glory? Cooke
had to give back the Pulitzer prize she had received
under false pretences, but there was a handsome
material reward for her deception: She was paid millions
for the right to publish and film her story.
Is it the Pulitzer that arouses that uncontrollable
ambition? Will there always be people who will prefer
even the status of a celebrity-villain to the anonymity
of the back pages? Is the institution that demands
excellence also the one that encourages fabrication?
Is the fabrication of a major newspaper story
different in essence from the efforts of an Olympic
athlete to win a medal at any price – even at the price
of throwing away his career if he is caught out in
a drug test?
One might have assumed that in countries where
the press enjoys freedom and prospers, and where
there are clear and detailed ethical guidelines, where
the integrity and the trustworthiness of the reporter
take precedence over all other values, things like this
could not happen. And if, nevertheless, they do
happen, they will immediately activate those systems
that are meant to function as a watchdog. Is it at all
possible to operate effective internal systems to
expose journalists who deviate from the rules and values,
even before they do any damage?
The scandals surrounding the fabrication of
stories in highly esteemed media outlets conceal a
grey and grim reality, in which editors and journalists
around the world are fighting to maintain their
paper's integrity and the integrity of its reporters.
How can a newspaper create an appetite for achievements
and competitiveness among its reporters and at
the same time preserve its credibility and maintain the
trust of its readers? How can a paper protect itself
from the misuse of its name and status by a member
of its own staff? Who will protect a newspaper from
a dishonest reporter? From a journalist who performs
services in return for favours from various people,
organisations or companies in the field he covers?
Journalists are exposed to constant temptations.
Their pay is usually low and the demands on them are
high. There is often a real gap between their world
and the world that they cover. For example, reporters
who cover business, the capital markets, sports,
fashion and entertainment, who report on a world in
which the standard of living and the income level of
the people they are writing about is immeasurably
higher than their own. What will deter a reporter
from taking advantage of his position to promote his
own personal interests?
How can a newspaper protect itself from a
reporter who rewards his sources with favourable
coverage and by blackening their rivals? Who can
stop a reporter from punishing those who do not
cooperate with him, through withholding coverage or
through hostile coverage?
Is the fabrication of a major
newspaper story different in essence
from the efforts of an Olympic athlete
to win a medal at any price – even at
the price of throwing away his career
if he is caught out in a drug test?
How do newspapers cope with the distant
reporter – the correspondent or the stringer who lives
and works far from where the paper is located, whose
connection with the newspaper is loose, but who
works in very close contact with the subjects of his
coverage? What would deter a distant correspondent
65
Hanoch Marmari
former Editor−in−Chief,
Ha'aretz, Tel Aviv

from becoming a local sheriff, who sells access to his
newspaper in return for benefits in his community?
Have such cases occurred for years in the newspaper
I edited until recently? Certainly nothing that
compares in magnitude or severity with the cases of
Jayson Blair and Stephen Glass. But there were cases
in which it became evident that a journalist abused
the newspaper and cases in which there was a breach
of trust between the editor and the journalist when it
emerged that the reporter had a problematic relationship
with the subjects of his reports. We have encountered
no fabrication and hardly any plagiarism. Possibly
the glory associated with an exclusive story in a
small society like ours is not great enough to spur a
journalist to risk everything. Or, perhaps, the reason
for this is that fabrication is very difficult in a place
where the media are so alert and transparency is
almost total. In my country it is almost impossible to
invent a character, because he will immediately be
sought by the researchers of the television channels
and the journalists at competing newspapers. Nevertheless,
we wake up every morning with the uneasy
feeling that this could also somehow happen to us.
These are the challenges we are facing and it is
for us to provide the answers. Here are a number of
points that guide us in our never ending-efforts to try
to implement standards and practices for good journalism.
The first is trust. An editor has to be stubborn in
making it clear to every level at the newspaper that
the relations of trust are supreme value, and that
every breach of that trust will be met with an immediate
and severe response.
The second is to take constant preventative
steps. The basic step is to refrain from hiring – or promoting
– a person about whom there is the slightest
shred of doubt with respect to his trustworthiness. A
talented person with a stable character is to be preferred
over a talented person whose most overt
characteristic is ambition, despite the temptation in
66
Journalists are exposed to constant
temptations. Their pay is usually
low and the demands on them
are high. There is often a real gap
between their world and the world
that they cover.
this. A no less important preventative measure is the
editor's willingness to exercise his authority and fire
anyone whose behaviour seems to undermine these
elements of trust. Whether it be a reporter or the editor
directly in charge of him who acted negligently.
The third is the willingness to be attentive to
complaints. If a reporter deceives his editors, this
might come to light through a complaint by an external
party. The editors have to be sensitive to such
approaches and to examine each and every claim,
however absurd it may sound. An editor must be wary
lest he fall prey to the betrayed spouse syndrome, a
situation in which the editor, who is required to back
up his reporters, refuses to believe that he has been
deceived by one of them.
Fourth – caution, restraint and a bit of scepticism.
An editor must be prepared to put off publication
of an excellent story for further checking, if it is
submitted in circumstances that appear even the least
bit suspicious. It is necessary to question the work of
new reporters, who have not yet proved themselves,
and the warning lights should go on when an editor
sees a story seems too perfect. Even a veteran reporter
should not be insulted if his editors request that he
share the sources of his information. We, at our paper,
refrain from using stringers or freelancers whom we
do not know well and prefer to purchase foreign
material from newspapers we know to be reliable.
Fifth – and last for now – not to hold back from
publishing corrections, and to make those corrections
swiftly and clearly. The newspaper has to dispense
with anyone who breaches the trust within it, which
amounts to a breach of trust between the newspapers
and its readers. Integrity is a primary asset for a
newspaper and it must be preserved at all costs.
Just before going to the presentation allow me to
quote Bill Kovach, who was for years an influential
editor at The New York Times, curator of the Nieman
Foundation for Journalism at Harvard and
chairman of the Committee of Concerned Journalists,
who was recently interviewed by my newspaper
on these issues:
"The first mantra that was repeated to me when
I became a reporter was, 'If your mother says she
loves you, check it out!' That kind of scepticism
is bred in the bones of a good reporter. And the same
scepticism, by necessity, has to be in the bones of
an editor."

Putting an End to Bribery
for News Coverage
The particular study that I am going to talk about
has to do with bribery for news coverage and a
campaign to put an end to that. I am here actually
representing two organisations. One is the International
Public Relations Association (IPRA), which
has about 1,000 members in 100 countries worldwide,
and I am also here as President and CEO of the
Institute for Public Relations. That is an independent
foundation supporting research and education in the
field of professional public relations and located at
the University of Florida in the United States.
Last year, the IPI Global Journalist ran an
article by Mike McGraw of the Kansas City Star,
who wrote, "Although it is important to remember
that honest journalists are still being killed because of
their work (54 in 2002), it would appear that an
increasing number of journalists are succumbing to
the same human frailties they usually write about." So
clearly this is important to the media.
As a matter of fact, one of the IPI board members,
Vuslat Dogan Sabanci, who is also the CEO of
Hurriyet in Turkey, was the sponsor of the Global
Index of Bribery for News Coverage of which I am
going to present some of the results. She points out,
"Bribery of the news media in too many countries
robs citizens of credible information they need to
make personal and collective decisions."
Why do public relations people care about that?
Well, as Alasdair Sutherland, who is the former
president of the International Public Relations
Association says, "The IPRA Campaign for Media
Transparency has the goal of reducing the incidence
of unethical and sometimes illegal practices in the
relationships between public relations professionals
and the media, and then of creating transparency in
the dealings between public relations professionals
and the journalists, editors, and staff of publishing
and broadcasting organisations with whom we
interact.
And the reason we care is that, frankly, if the
local public cannot have confidence in what they read
then, as public relations professionals, we are not able
to as effectively tell the stories of our clients.
So based on that kind of thinking, the International
Public Relations Association set several strategies
for the campaign for media transparency.
One, understand the dimensions of the problem
through research.
Two, raise the awareness of it through publicity.
Three, create a Charter on Media Transparency
and win signatories.
Four, and this is my reason for wanting to be
here today, partner with other organisations who
share our determination to achieve media transparency
worldwide.
So we created a Global Index of Bribery for
News Coverage to first of all put the spotlight on the
practice as the best way to eliminate it, and secondly
to have a way to compare countries and track
progress over time. Now to do rigorous research
requires rigorous definitions, even though we realise
that the problem can take many forms. For the purposes
of this research, we defined it as the likelihood
that journalists will seek or accept cash for news
coverage, and we looked at the ten largest-circulation
newspapers in more than 60 countries.
It was jointly commissioned by the Institute for
Public Relations and IPRA and sponsored by Hürriyet.
It was conducted by two academics, Dr. Dean
Kruckeberg, Professor & Coordinator of the Mass
Communication Division, University of Northern
Iowa, and a young Russian woman, Katerina Tsetsura,
who was a Doctoral Student at Purdue University
at the time.
There were interesting research challenges,
because there is no way to directly measure cash paid
for news coverage through direct observation. No one
is going to let you stand there and take notes on what
is happening. So the researchers designed a composite
index methodology based on surrogate
measures – predictive, correlated but not necessarily
causative.
Now how do you select and validate these factors?
We conducted a survey of two worldwide leadership
groups affected by the problem, i.e., the International
Press Institute's Board, National Committee
Members and Fellows, and the International Public
Relations Association's Board and Council. In both
cases, those were audiences of about a hundred that
we tapped into to get expert thinking, not on the
results by country, but on the factors that we ought to
be measuring. We presented to them some 20 factors
and asked them to rate them for perceived correlation
to decreased likelihood that journalists will seek or
accept cash for news coverage.
What was interesting is that those two leadership
groups were quite consistent in the factors that
they thought were important including long-time
tradition of self-determination by citizens; comprehensive
corruption laws with effective enforcement;
accountability of government to citizens at all levels;
high spending on education; high liberal and professional
education of practicing journalists; a wellestablished,
publicised, and enforceable journalism
code of professional ethics; free press, free speech and
free flow of information; high media competition;
67
Frank Ovaitt
Co−Chairman, Institute
for Public Relations;
Managing Director,
Crossover International,
McLean, VA

and finally that journalists are paid at a professional
level.
Now that last factor was particularly interesting,
because as we know greed knows no boundaries. Just
the fact that people are well paid does not mean that
you cannot get them to do something wrong, and we
have seen plenty of examples of that in other fields
over the last few years. But it was also the only factor
on that list that, unfortunately, proved impossible to
acquire objective third party data. We went into this
thinking that surely this is one that, country-by-country,
we can see how the pay of journalists compares to
the pay of other professions. Unfortunately, we just
could not find that comparative data so we ultimately
were required to leave that one out until we find a
better way of getting to that data.
We took eight factors, gathered the data from a
variety of sources, and were able to rank 66 countries
from highest to lowest. I am not going to give you the
whole list of 66 but, just to give you a sense of both
the high end and the low end, these were the countries
ranked 1 through 5 in the Composite Index:
Country: Mean Score: Rank:
Finland 4.88 1
Denmark 4.75 2
New Zealand 4.75 2
Switzerland 4.75 2
Germany 4.63 3
Iceland 4.63 3
UK 4.63 3
Norway 4.57 4
Austria 4.5 5
Canada 4.5 5
Netherlands 4.5 5
Sweden 4.5 5
Belgium 4.5 5
USA 4.5 5
These were the countries ranked 25 and lower:
Country: Mean Score: Rank:
India 2.25 25
Kenya 2.25 25
Kuwait 2.17 26
Indonesia 2.13 27
Nigeria 2.13 27
Bahrain 2.0 28
Jordan 2.0 28
Egypt 1.63 29
Pakistan 1.5 30
Bangladesh 1.38 31
Vietnam 1.38 31
Saudi Arabia 1.29 32
China 0.75 33
68
What next? Well, first we hope to repeat the
index every two years. Even more important, we think
it is time for action with partner organisations who
first of all share our basic position on the importance
of media transparency; who perhaps have developed
and promulgated their own codes on this matter; who
would consider cooperating with us on the next iteration
of the Global Index of Bribery for Coverage; and
who would consider the five principles of IPRA's
Charter on Media Transparency as the basis for a
coalition of like-minded organisations. We have
already reached out to about a half dozen organisations,
one of them being the International Press Institute.
I wish to mention the five points of the IPRA
Charter on Media Transparency. They are:
1. News material appears as a result of the news
judgment of the journalists involved, and not as a
result of any payment in cash or in kind.
2. Material that appears as a result of a payment
will be clearly identified as advertising or paid promotion.
3. No journalist or member of the media should
ever suggest that news coverage will appear for any
reason other than its merit.
4. While samples or loans of products or services
may be necessary when journalists must test the
product or service to render an objective opinion, the
length of time should be agreed in advance and all
loaned products should be returned afterward.
5. The media should institute written policies
regarding receipt of gifts or discounted products and
services, and journalists and staff should be required
to read and sign their acceptance of the policy.
There were interesting research
challenges, because there is no way
to directly measure cash paid
for news coverage through direct
observation. No one is going
to let you stand there and take
notes on what is happening.
So those are the five basic points that we have
put in place for our organisation. The question that I
leave you with, and that the Board of IPI considered
a few days ago in their meeting, is whether IPI will
join us in forming a coalition of like-minded organisations;
engaging in a discussion based on the five
principles in the Charter on Media Transparency;
adopting a code of conduct based on the final shared
principles; and cooperating on the next iteration of
the Global Index of Bribery for News Coverage.

Educating Your Editors
First of all, I would like to say that it is a privilege
for me to sit here between Adam Michnik and
Tomasz Lis, as well as amongst people whom I know
from afar. Frank Ovaitt is one of them. Last year, I
read his report of 2002 and I have to say that this
report caused quite a stir in Poland, especially
amongst journalists. We strongly protested against
this report, because the image being portrayed was
that the Polish journalists were the most corrupt journalists
among all the entering EU countries. Of
course, we hated that. But then I studied the report
more closely and what I found was that, in fact, the
report was all about the likelihood of being corrupted.
There were no cases quoted. It was only an analysis
of conditions in Poland and other countries and
the ranking is based on the likelihood of being corrupted.
This is where we started to investigate, and by
we I mean the Press Freedom Monitoring Centre,
which is part of the Polish Journalists' Association.
I am the Director of the Centre and the Vice President
of the Association.
I remember the statement we published after
reading those findings. We got a very unusual
response, because, two days later, a well-known journalist
wrote, "The survey confirms all the private
information I have heard about my colleagues." He
went on to say, "One can buy from a journalist a promotional
campaign for a product, for a company, for
a political party, or for a person. He wrote, "Journalists
are prone to all kinds of intentional leaks and
some of them have dual loyalty, not only to their editors,
readers, viewers and listeners, but also to the
Secret Police, because they have connections with the
Secret Police."
I have to say that after a couple of months of
sitting on this and trying to find out the truth about
journalism in Poland, I knew that both opinions –
our opinion that was strongly against this accusation
and the other opinion which said, I agree with all that
– were true. For, of course, there are journalists and
journalists, practices and practices, and there are
companies and companies. What I can say is from
first-hand experience of what I found.
First of all, a general statement. In 2003, every
day main newspapers were disclosing cases of
bribery, political favouritism, mismanagement, etc. In
all strata of political and economic life, we were finding
these wrongdoings. If you think logically, it
means that no professional group may be free of the
illnesses of the whole society, because if the society is
rotten, there is no way that we can be an isolated
island. However, it is very difficult to find hard facts,
proofs of these practices.
I will try to list a few signals that I received. I
hope that Tomasz Lis and maybe others will follow
up with more concrete examples.
First, it is a fact that many well-known editors,
journalists, or investigative reporters are now working
in public relations as lobbyists. It happens in Poland
and one can understand why. Why are they successful
in their job? It is obvious. Because of contacts. They
cooperate with their former colleagues.
Secondly, just two months ago, a good friend of
mine, a journalist, told me about his personal experience.
He works for one of the tabloids. He said that
he was approached by the director of a company that
he was supposed to write about. The director asked
him a very simple question, "Do you write for a 'single
rate' or a 'double rate'?" He was very surprised. (A
single rate is about 1,000 dollars. A double rate is
about 2,000 dollars).
Another friend of mine, a PR director, told me
about how he prepares budgets for pharmaceutical
companies. If they promote something like a Cancer
Week, or some medicine for certain illnesses, he wants
them to be on the morning TV shows. It is in his
budget how much he should pay for that. Not to the
TV station, but to the editors.
I can continue with other examples, but I do not
want to. However, I can see that you are interested. So
let us try to think what actions we should take to get
rid of these kinds of examples.
How can we fight these practices? I think that
for years the Poles, for cultural reasons, being
deprived of their own state, were very good in cheating
the society, in cheating first of all the state. We
have, first of all, the notion that cheating is a way of
life. It is something in the culture and I think it is very
dangerous. So I think there is something in general
that has to be done. Secondly, I totally agree that we
have to check everything, even if your mother says
she loves you.
For seven years, I ran the Polish edition of
Reader's Digest. It was a very rich publication and we
checked everything, because it is a reference publication.
One day, we picked up a story from one of the
dailies in Poland about two connected families, one
Polish and one German. Back in 1945, the Polish
family was moved to the East, the German family to
the West, and now after 50 years they were meeting
again and recalling hard times. A heartbreaking story.
We had to check everything, so we demanded all the
sources from the author and an independent reporter
went to investigate the story. To make a long story
short, it was all made up by the editor. I wrote a letter
to the editor, the journalist was fired and then I
wrote about it in the press.
The problem is that Reader's Digest is a monthly
and you have enough time, enough money, to check
everything. I do not think that this is the best solution
for the daily press, or even for the weekly press. You
69
Andrzej Krajewski
Director, Press Freedom
Monitoring Centre (CMWP);
and Vice President, Polish
Journalists' Association,
Warsaw

Bill Mitchell
Editor, Poynter Online,
Poynter Institute,
St. Petersburg, FL
have to educate your editors. You have to trust them,
because you cannot check them all the time. I think
there are some good attempts. Tomasz Wróblewski,
editor-in-chief of the Polish edition of Newsweek,
said that they have been talking about ethical matters
amongst themselves.
More and more organisations are adopting ethical
codes for their journalists and I know, for example,
that another attempt was made by Orkla Media.
Orkla Media has ten papers in Poland, among them
The idea of implementing good journalistic practices
has become the focus of many American
newsrooms over the past year.
The reasons for this are clear: one scandal after
another, beginning with the Jayson Blair episode at
The New York Times a year ago, and still going
strong with the even more egregious abuses of USA
Today's Jack Kelley, fully exposed just last month.
I would like to briefly describe the dimensions
of that landscape that may be relevant for you, and
then mention four steps that seem to me essential for
any news organisation that wishes to survive and
thrive in this environment in the years ahead.
The evidence suggests that we are not yet at the
point where implementing good journalistic practices
has become a business imperative in American newsrooms.
But to the extent that a broken trust with
readers and viewers threatens the bottom line, I think
we will find increasing attention paid to the linkage
between quality journalism and financial results.
Especially challenging these days is the difficulty
of re-shaping journalistic practices at a time when
the ground is shifting so dramatically beneath our
feet. Perhaps the best way to describe this shift is
to offer a new twist to the old metaphor of journalist-as-gatekeeper,
the sentry standing watch and
deciding what gets published or broadcast – and what
does not.
This idea comes from journalism reformer Tom
Rosenstiel, who points out that the traditional gatekeeper
looks at some news and says, "Okay, yes, that's
important enough, that's interesting enough, that's
well-reported enough. Let's open the gate and let
it in." As for the rest, the gatekeeper says, "No, this
isn't really news. This is just rumour. This doesn't
measure up." So the gate is slammed shut and the bad
stuff is dispatched to the nether regions of innuendo
and unverified allegation – never to reach the eyes
or ears of the public.
For better or worse – actually, for better AND
70
Rzeczpospolita. They introduced a code of good editorial
practices, a code not agreed upon by journalists
alone, but by journalists and publishers. It is, I think,
a new and interesting step.
Finally, I have to say that I was interested to see
that a couple of weeks ago Polish public TV had created
the position of a viewers' ombudsman. Many
positions have been created in television. This one
may help. I think that it is an interesting attempt.
Gatekeepers Without Fences
worse – those days are over. As Rosenstiel points out,
journalists today stand at gates no longer flanked by
barriers of any sort.
The Internet and the proliferation of publishing
outlets have taken care of that, creating a new and
more challenging landscape for those of us still
at the gates. Newspaper editors and TV news
directors can still make decisions based on their
values and standards. But gone is the time when any
news organisation – or for that matter, any government
– can hope to control for long what the citizens
get to hear or see.
You may choose to keep something out of your
paper, or off your air, but the new magazine with
funding from abroad may think that is just what it
needs to steal your readers.
Instead of serving as the public's only source
of news and information, journalism as we know it,
journalism that stands for such values as accuracy
and independence and fairness, will survive only if
it remains the best source of news and information.
What measures up as best will of course vary
from one market to another, from one country to
another. But my hunch is that four characteristics
will remain common to the most successful news
organisations, regardless of format, language or
customer base.
1. Clear articulation of values and standards as
a way of differentiating one media product from
another.
2. Significant investment in newsroom training
and staffing that connects journalistic competence
much more directly to commercial success.
3. More rigorous internal controls in the newsroom
that carry an echo from the Cold War: Trust
but Verify!
4. A new transparency that respects the intelligence
and scepticism of readers and viewers.
After the Jayson Blair case last year, Poynter
pulled together a group of 18 leading journalists to

address the values and standards in five main areas:
1. Leadership and culture.
2. Accessibility and accountability.
3. Attribution and sourcing.
4. Corrections and clarifications.
5. By-lines and datelines.
In addition to executives, rank and file journalists
have a hunger to talk about the values that underpin
their work and the standards they're expected
to uphold.
This is a hunger that extends across borders. In
two weeks of seminars that Poynter conducted in
March in Johannesburg and Cape Town, I found a
variety of journalists debated with great vigour such
issues as paid-for trips by government and business,
and the poaching of journalists by government agencies.
Last week in Wroclaw, in southwest Poland, I
spent a day with more than 25 Polish journalists
focused on, among other things, standards aimed at
increasing the credibility and independence of their
newsrooms.
If there is a threshold value for the operation of
good newsrooms, it must be basic journalistic competence.
I was visiting a newspaper in Warsaw last night
and I asked the purpose of a separate room down the
hall from the newsroom. "Oh, those are the proofreaders,"
the editor told me. That struck me as interesting.
Proofreaders have not existed in American
newsrooms for 30 years. Well, one of the proofreaders
told me last night, "You wouldn't believe the
spelling and punctuation of some of our staff."
You hear similar complaints in American newsrooms,
but not so loudly that anybody is paying to
bring back the proofreaders whose jobs were eliminated
30 years ago to save money. Nor has there been
significant investment in training. An exhaustive 2002
study showed that "the news industry lags behind
[other businesses] in providing its people with new
knowledge and skills through professional training."
It will be interesting to see if the recent scandals,
which exposed inadequate training in leadership,
ethics and the basics of the craft, will prompt publishers
and owners to spend what it takes to develop
the staffs they need.
It is the tendency of all fields to prefer trust over
verification when it comes to the performance of colleagues.
But as my Poynter colleague, Roy Clark, suggested
in a piece on Poynter Online last week, the
time has come to take up Ronald Reagan's approach
to the arms race: "Trust but Verify!"
Finally, operating as they do now as gatekeepers-without-fences,
newsrooms must come to grips
with the reality that their actions will be transparent
whether they make them so or not.
At Poynter, the most popular feature of our
Website is Jim Romenesko's daily log of journalism
about journalism. If there's an article about an American
newsroom somewhere on the Web, chances are
Romenesko will have a link to it before the day is out.
And if a newsroom executive sends a memo to his or
her staff via e-mail, you may see that on Romenesko
as well.
We've received some criticism from media executives
who say all this exposure makes it more difficult
to lead their staffs. We recognise that, but believe
the transparency will be healthy for the news business
in the long run.
Whether initiated by readers/viewers or competitors
or news organisations themselves, transparency
is going to happen. It is up to the news
organisations whether that transparency reveals the
implementation of good journalistic practices – or
simply how much those practices are still needed.
The Issue of Plagiarism
When it comes to declining journalistic standards,
the most serious concern we face in
Japan comes from plagiarism or, to be more precise,
the lifting of information found on the Internet or
data bases.
Let me cite here a recent serious case of plagiarism
at our newspaper. The incident took place on 8
June 2000, just four years ago, and concerns an analysis
piece on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
(NPT), written by a young reporter in our Hiroshima
bureau. About one third of the piece, it turned out,
had been lifted from a serialised story that had
appeared between 26 and 28 May in a regional news-
paper, the Chugoku Shimbun. On 19 June, the
Chugoku Shimbun called the matter to our attention.
We immediately set up an internal committee to
investigate the matter. We came to the conclusion that
the claim of plagiarism had been justified. The analysis
piece in question had used numerous passages and
expressions that had appeared in the Chugoku Shimbun
series. The plagiarised passages accounted for
altogether one third of the article as published. The
reporter who wrote the story was 32 years old and he
had been working for our paper for four years. By an
unfortunate coincidence, at the same time the plagiarised
piece was published, there had been a major
71
Yoshio Murakami
Advisor/International
Affairs, Asahi Shimbun,
Tokyo

eaking news story in the Hiroshima area, the
hijacking of a bus. As a result, our bureau chief did
not have the time to vet the NPT analysis piece before
it was relayed to our Osaka and Tokyo main offices.
My newspaper was shocked by what had happened.
On 21 June, two days after receiving the letter
alleging plagiarism from the Chugoku Shimbun, we
sent the managing editor of the Osaka main office to
Hiroshima to apologise. On 23 June, the Asahi Shimbun
printed an account of the whole incident in our
city news section; this ran nationwide in all editions of
the morning paper, which has a circulation of 8.3
million copies. On 27 June, the Asahi Shimbun board
summarily dismissed the reporter responsible. We
acted very quickly. That was not all. The board
decreased the salaries of the Osaka managing editor,
the Osaka district news editor and the Hiroshima
bureau-chief, holding them responsible for the fiasco.
There was more to come. These three staffers were
removed from their posts with immediate effect. In
the view of the board, these three senior employees
had failed to carry out their duty to oversee the
implementation of high professional standards at our
newspaper.
These disciplinary steps were severe. However,
this case of plagiarism had stirred up opinion both in
and outside the Hiroshima prefecture against our
newspaper. We received some 80 letters of protest
after we had published our full description of the
incident on 23 June. One letter stated, "Your reporter
lacks a sense of mission." Another said, "Severe punishment
should be taken to prevent a recurrence of
such plagiarism." Some 23 of our faithful readers
cancelled their subscriptions in a matter of a few
weeks. That might not seem many given our circulation
figures, but the cancellations shocked us. Simply
put, our reputation was at stake.
I have selected plagiarism as one of the most
serious issues for the Japanese newspaper world
because not only our paper but also others had similar
experiences that same year. At least three nationwide
papers admitted, one after the other, that they
had similar, serious cases of plagiarism that year.
We ourselves undertook a fundamental internal
review to prevent any recurrences of plagiarism. The
committee that we set up made four recommendations,
which we passed on to our more than 2,000
staff reporters. Asahi reporters must observe the following
basic principles: first, they must gather primary
information themselves either by witnessing an
event or directly hearing from someone involved; second,
while they can make use of information coming
to them by fax, Internet and e-mail or else picked up
from databases, such sources can only be regarded as
72
Teaching young reporters to use
the new sources of data
in a responsible way is a challenge.
secondary or tertiary and should be used only as
means to reach primary sources of information, i.e.
by going to people directly involved in the news event;
third, in writing their stories, our reporters must distinguish
between what they saw themselves, what others
told them they saw, and what material they had
gathered by other methods. "Don't mix them all up,"
we told them. The fourth and final principle was not
to write a piece if there was not enough material. "Do
not follow a preconceived notion for a story," must be
the rule.
In the course of their work the members of our
investigative committee came to feel increasingly that
relying too heavily on the Internet can undermine the
reporting process, and as a result the Internet does
pose a threat to the maintenance of high standards.
At the same time, they noted that PCs, the Internet
and databases are all around us, and that the technology
is progressing rapidly. We live in an age of technology
and we have to make the best use of the gadgets
of today.
Our investigating committee canvassed opinion
inside the Asahi Shimbun to see what our reporters
felt about present-day conditions. A survey showed
that a large majority – over 70 per cent of our young
reporters – felt there was a distinct danger in making
use of databases, even though they did so on a regular
basis. What they said was that they felt a risk
that they might skip checking facts obtained from
databases because the way the information is displayed
looks so convincing. These days, young
reporters come to their desks, switch on their PCs
and access the Internet and many databases. By
contrast with times past, they may not spend much
time talking to veteran reporters; their heads are
buried in their computers all day. We realised that
under these circumstances the risk of plagiarism
mounts considerably.
We also realised that action had to be taken to
counter that danger. In addition to the four main
principles laid down by the Asahi Shimbun investigative
committee, we felt a need to encourage reporters,
especially young ones, to make more contact with
senior and mid-level reporters. With this in mind, our
paper now dispatches mid-career reporters based at
our main offices to some of the 300 local news
bureaus around the nation. We also called on our
bureau chiefs to spend more time training young
reporters. We strengthened and improved training
and education systems, which are regularly held in
our main offices of Tokyo and Osaka. We are now
offering more opportunities for junior reporters to
come to our main offices to work with experienced
editorial staff on major news projects.
The Internet, as seen from our newspaper, constitutes
a major challenge. We have come to realise
that we must use the Internet, and not be used by it.
We have to control this powerful source of information
and raw data. Teaching young reporters to use

the new sources of data in a responsible way is a challenge,
because most of the time it is difficult to know
what they are up to. That said, I must add, we con-
The Concept of Final Truth
Iwould like to talk about two rather broad themes,
which I think emerged after the painful dispute
last year between the government and the BBC.
There are bound to be lessons to be learnt when
a piece of journalism is scrutinised to the extent that
the report about the government dossier on weapons
of mass destruction was scrutinised. Never in the history
of British journalism has a single report been put
under the microscope in this way. It was not only the
report that was analysed. It was also the subsequent
correspondence and behaviour of both sides leading
to the death of the reporter's source, Dr. David Kelly,
and there was disclosure even after Dr. Kelly's death
about the subsequent correspondence and internal
memoranda.
One of the lessons – painful and self-protecting
– that needs to be derived is to be careful about your
use of e-mails. This may not be the most high-minded
and important lesson to be gleaned from the whole
Hutton affair but, from my point of view, it is by no
means the least important. E-mails that everyone
assumed would never see the light of day saw the light
of day, and the public were not only entertained but
they were informed and educated about journalism
and government in a way that they could possibly
never have predicted.
So the wounds are still raw and it is quite a difficult
task to work out what the healing process is,
and to make sure that in the process of trying to learn
the right lessons we do not inflict any more wounds
on ourselves and that we make sure that we use the
right remedies and not the wrong ones.
Some of the themes are actually quite straightforward
and can be addressed by training: the
description of sources; how best to make certain
sources are protected; and how to keep good, contemporary
notes.
But I think that there is a broader theme relating
to transparency and accountability that comes out of
all this, that is the handling of complaints for a society
that is less deferential, for an audience that is more
demanding, and where there is less instant trust available
than used to be the case.
In the BBC's case, we did have a system in place,
but the government chose not to use the system. In
some ways that was less surprising than the fact that
the decision taken by the government not to use the
tinue to be on guard at my newspaper. We consider
plagiarism to be one of our most serious editorial
concerns.
BBC's complaint system was not considered by either
Lord Hutton or by the journalists writing at the time
to be in any way dismissed, criticised or mocked.
The system existed, but it had insufficient power,
insufficient muscle, and insufficient heritage to be
taken as something that everybody knew could be
used if there was a journalistic crisis. If the BBC had
bruised the reputation of an institution or a business
or a person, there was not an automatic understanding
in the country at large that such a system existed
and that justice could come from it. As a result, we
are going to have to rework that system, modernise it
and use the appropriate technology. One of the things
that has been transformed as a result of the Internet
is the possibility of making sure that your audiences
know, in a way that is transparent and clear and painless,
what it is that needs to be clarified and corrected
by simply pointing out to them on a regular basis that
the Internet exists to put these clarifications on-line
and in the public domain.
Some of our rivals, whether they are broadcast
rivals or print rivals, do it better than we do.
The clarifications and corrections column is one
of the most entertaining bits of the Guardian
newspaper in London, and it stands completely
outside the editorial chain of command. The editor
has no say in the final decision of the Guardian's
own ombudsman. Furthermore, the Guardian's
editor cannot sack the Guardian's own ombudsman.
Now, I am not suggesting that is the only way
in which one can proceed, but it only demonstrates
a degree of independence and a separation of powers
which I think may be the precondition for insuring
that a journalistic institution is considered by
its audience to be sufficiently transparent and sufficiently
modest to put right things that go wrong.
With regard to the second broader lesson, I
think that we are all aware of the importance of getting
things right and accurate and truthful and, in the
case of the public service broadcasters, impartial.
When we tell a story and we tell it accurately, we may
think that we have done enough. My contention is
that the definition of good and responsible journalism
needs to take more explicitly into account not
only what we know but, just as importantly sometimes,
what we do not know. The question that I pose
to myself, my colleagues on the panel and to the
73
Mark Damazer
Deputy Director,
BBC News, London

Tomasz Lis
former Editor−in−Chief,
Fakty – TVN,
Warsaw
industry at large, is whether we have spent enough
time thinking about how to properly balance the need
to be hard-hitting truthful, accurate and clear in our
journalism with the need to point out to audiences
that sometimes the things that you cannot see, that
you cannot hear, that you cannot witness and that
you cannot write about may be as important in its
context.
Let me just leave you with two or three different
examples about how elusive the concept of final truth
is as opposed to what we journalists do, which is have
a stab at it. If you take the British abdication crisis in
the 1930s, where the affair between King Edward VIII
and the American divorcee, Wallis Simpson, ended up
in his abdication, all the written sources are not yet
available to the public. So what actually went on in
the politics and the relationship between the Royal
Family and the government and within the Royal
Family is something that none of us fully understand.
So, after over 70 years, there is no final truth in the
matter.
A more contemporary and, I think, resonant
example: We all know that in Iraq last year we reported
truthfully and fairly the extent to which the American
central command communications structure was
able to say on a Tuesday morning that Nasiriya had
fallen, on a Wednesday morning that it had not fallen,
on a Thursday morning that it had fallen, and on
a Friday morning that it had been taken again. It was
perfectly credible for us to say that we were simply following
what appeared to be legitimate sources contributing
the information correctly. But the truth
about the war in Iraq last year was that the most
important bits of it, militarily at least, were things
that we never saw. The bombing by B52s, day after
day, of the Republican Guard south of Baghdad was
Breaching the Rules
Actually, I have to say that I am jealous of my
colleagues, because my impression is that their
problems, their journalistic problems, are mainly
internal in the sense that they come from inside the
newsroom, not from the outside. How many Jayson
Blairs do we have in Poland? I do not know, probably
a lot of them, maybe a hundred. I have no idea and
I am not disregarding this problem. But if I were to
rank our problems, the dangers for us journalists that
come from inside the newsroom would be a little bit
lower than dangers that come from outside the newsroom.
What kind of external dangers am I talking
about? Well, I would say they come from the political
74
something that was never witnessed by a TV reporter
because nobody was foolish enough to wish to be
embedded with the Iraqi troops south of Baghdad.
There was no way we knew the extent to which
that military attack was effective. We could have
guessed that it was likely to be effective given the
Americans overwhelming military superiority in the
air, but looking back over our coverage we said
remarkably little about it.
If you look at what happened in the west of the
country, in which the oilfields were secured – and it
seems to me reasonably clear that American and British
special forces had been in action there for months
beforehand – it is quite likely that for an audience
fully trying to understand what was going on, it needed
to get to grips with that context. But we were not
able to bear witness to it. We were not able to tell our
audiences that the truthful answer to how the military
campaign is going is we do not actually fully know.
How often do we encourage our best journalists
to come up with an answer to a question posed by a
news anchorman or by a news editor who says,
"What's going to happen next in Afghanistan, in Tora
Bora?" or "What will be the precise outcome of the
takeover on 30 June by the Iraqi authorities from the
American coalition?" And the honest answer may be
that there are real limits to what we know and how
much we should predict. It seems to me that one of
the lessons that has to be learned from some of these
catastrophic failures in journalism over the last 18
months is that there are different degrees and that
there are different levels of catastrophe. The time may
have come to understand that our duty to our audience
consists not only of telling them what we do
know, but also of being transparent with them about
what it is that we do not know.
world, from our dysfunctional political system.
For one and a half years, Polish journalists were
forced to fight the government to kill a bill that our
government introduced, a bill that in fact would limit
freedom of the press in Poland.
And what is the link between these pressures
and what is going on in the newsroom? It is very
direct. If an owner is careful, your room for manoeuvre
inside your newsroom will get more and more limited.
The biggest Polish companies are at least partly
state-owned. If you need commercials, you will know
what to do in order to get commercials. You will
know what to write and what not to write about. It is
very easy. The system works perfectly.

Of course, some would say it's all relative. We all
know FOX News' slogan, journalism that is fair and
balanced, a no-spin zone. Well, someone could say
everything is relative. Actually, as a viewer and someone
who watches the television news, I have to admit
that slowly but surely I am losing hope that a no-spin
zone exists. Last year, I heard that BBC breached the
basic rules of journalism. Last year, I heard that FOX
News is pro-Bush and CNN is anti-Bush. The German
public TV channels ZDF and ARD were
accused of spinning the Iraqi war coverage in an anti-
American way. The biggest French newspapers were
spinning their coverage in an anti-American way, too.
Maybe there is no real impartiality or objectivity. I
believe 97 per cent of reporters – and my colleagues
from America should correct me if I am wrong –
voted for Bill Clinton. I read it in the Washington
Post and it struck me.
So is there impartiality? Yes, of course. The
question is where we are on the scale between
absolute objectivity and impartiality, and total dishonesty.
Facing Dilemmas
Iwould like start where Tomasz Lis left off. I would
like to say that I am deeply envious with regard
to the problems of our American or British friends.
Of course, it is all very important because we can
learn about the threats that media may face in a
highly developed democracy. Our democracy is
much less developed. I believe that we now find
ourselves midway between the problems of the
British journalists at the BBC and the problems
of Russian journalists, who find it absolutely impossible
to write anything. So we have to talk
about mechanisms on the one hand and conditions
on the other.
Are we indeed gatekeepers? It is a good
question. We have tremendous influence and tremendous
impact on the public opinion. To a certain
extent, we know that we can use our words to kill.
We can use our words to destroy. This definitely
makes us absolutely responsible for what we say. At
the same time, I believe that we journalists have to be
like the Capitoline Geese who saved Rome from the
Gauls with their honking. We have to be an early
warning system for everybody for a variety of reasons
that have been mentioned here already. We have
absolutely no right to keep quiet about certain things.
On the one hand, we have the corrupt public
official who corrupts everything around him, which
means that he can also corrupt the media. All of us in
We have to breach the basic rules
of journalism to save journalism,
to save our freedom of the press.
Actually, I would like to have the problems that
my colleagues from Japan, Great Britain and the
United States have. You are in a very comfortable situation.
Yesterday, I read in Gazeta Wyborcza that
President Kwaśniewski said we have freedom of the
press, but that we should also be responsible. I tend to
believe that I understand this in a somewhat different
way than President Kwaśniewski does. We are responsible
for fighting for this freedom of the press, inside
the newsroom and outside the newsroom, on-air and
off the air. The problem is, of course, that on the way
to freedom, to real freedom of the press, we become
part of the story. Fighting this government media bill,
we became part of the story. We engaged in journalism
about journalism and this is a paradox. We have
to breach the basic rules of journalism to save journalism,
to save our freedom of the press. A paradox,
but we have to face it.
the media have already encountered or have at least
heard of such proposals made by public officials.
None of us can actually say that he has never
faced such dilemmas. It is not only about the money.
It may be about a phone call from a friend who
happens to be a minister or a general or an ambassador
or the president of a company who says, "Listen
Adam, don't write about this." And I always say,
"The only thing that I can promise is that we're not
going to write anything that is not true and if we
do err, you will have a chance to respond." We are
here to write. We are not here to not write.
So the situation is neither simple nor straightforward,
because sometimes we are actually being
manipulated. We are fed little titbits of truth. The
question arises, therefore, whether we can actually use
those fragments of truth to build a true picture.
If we ask who can protect an honest journalist
against pressure, I believe that a good reputation and
the public opinion have to protect the journalist. The
journalist's boss has to be absolutely convinced that
should he force his journalist to do something
immoral, that boss is going to be ostracized to such
an extent in his own community that there will be no
social or economic benefits to be gained.
We are facing a greedy form of capitalism in that
there is no understanding that investment in human
resources is both long-term and rational. This is
75
Adam Michnik,
Editor−in−Chief,
Gazeta Wyborcza,
Warsaw

capitalism that wants to stuff as much as possible into
its mouth and spend the rest of its life in the
Caribbean. And this sad form of capitalism involves
Western capital that enters our market. It is a source
of great anxiety in that what we are facing here is
a paradox of sorts. On the one hand, we are supporters
of Western capitalism and Western democracy.
On the other hand, we say that Western investors
see the press market as tantamount to the toilet
paper market, which means that profit is the only
criteria applicable.
Profit means attracting advertising and attracting
readers, which means that we are facing a process
of tabloidization, barbarization and boorishness in
the everyday press products. As often as not, the press
has ceased to be a source of credible information, a
forum for debate. To a larger and larger extent, it is
just a moneymaking machine and nothing else. It may
indeed turn out that at some future point, we are
going to have problems in finding a remedy.
Let me offer a few comments regarding my own
personal dilemmas that I've faced in attempting to
prepare good editorial work for a sound newspaper
that wants to be a part of the Polish civic society and
the Polish democratic order. Let me quote examples
of situations where my colleagues and I at Gazeta
Wyborcza faced conflict-triggering situations.
Our journalists learned that the conductor of
one of our boys choirs, who had been accused of
molesting and sexually abusing children, had AIDS
and that he had concealed this from the families of
those boys. We made a decision, which was later criticised
by many because we revealed in our paper the
fact that the accused had AIDS. I have actually
become schizophrenic, because everyday, until noon,
I believe that we did the right thing because the families
learned what they had to learn, whereas, in the
76
afternoons, I believe that we did the wrong thing,
because we revealed a medical secret. This is a pitfall
that we most probably never will be able to avoid.
As often as not, the press has
ceased to be a source of credible
information, a forum for debate.
To a larger and larger extent,
it is just a moneymaking machine
and nothing else.
In another case, we were the first European
daily, apart from Corriere della Sera, to publish the
entire article by the Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci
after September 11. I have been told that it is a racist
article, and that the publication of that article was an
error. Now what had been driving me? I believe that
this is more than a simple piece of journalism. I
believe that it is a wail, a long, lonely wail of an excellent
female journalist and I thought that it was my
duty to publish the entire piece including later commentaries.
Today, if we are going to be independent, we
have to be able to make money for ourselves. We have
to be able to actually earn our own money and we
have to be able to convince our readers and our viewers
that it is worthwhile to pay some money to read
Gazeta Wyborcza or another daily. This means that
we have to be market driven to a certain extent. On
the other hand, we do have to bear in mind that publishing
or editing a paper does not in any way resemble
shoelace manufacturing. If we publish a newspaper,
we also publish a certain set of values. A business
sense without a mission is nothing else but cynicism.
But if you only have a mission and you do not have a
business sense, that will put you in an ivory tower that
is not going to satisfy anything but your own vanity.

Radomir Licina,
Chairman of the Board, Danas,
Belgrade (left), at the New York Times
Syndicate stand
At the Warsaw Institute
of Technology.
(from left to right)
Marta Srokosz,
IPI Staff Member;
Lisa Krieglsteiner,
Marketing Editor,
Bloomberg News, Germany;
Diana Orlova,
IPI Staff Member;
Irina Shust, Institute of Mass
Information, Ukraine
1
2
78
1
2
(from left to right)
Janne Virkunnen, Senior Editor−in−
Chief, Helsingin Sanomat, Finland;
Boris Bergant, Deputy Director
General, RTV SLO, Slovenia;
Mitja Mersol, Editor−at−Large,
Delo, Slovenia
At Jablonna Palace
3
4
3
4
Fatuma Mohamed, Nation Media
Group, Kenya
at Jablonna Palace
Adam Michnik, Editor−in−Chief, Gazeta
Wyborcza, Poland, (centre),
Ido Dissentshik,
Editor & CEO, Dison Ltd, Israel,
enjoy a panel session
Russell Mills, former Publisher,
Ottawa Citizen, Canada, (left)
Hanoch Marmari, Editor−at−Large,
Ha'aretz, Israel,
chat at the Warsaw Institute of
Technology
5
6
7
5
6
7

8
9
10
8
9
10
Lech Wałęsa, Former Polish President
(left) chats with
Jarosław Kurski Columnist,
Gazeta Wyborcza, Poland,
and
Gilbert Grellet, Director for External
Relations, Agence France−Presse (AFP),
France, at the Royal Castle
(from left to right)
Ingrid Wetterqvist, International
IDEA, Sweden;
Hazel Katana,
Nation Media Group, Kenya;
Agustine Nwikinaka, General
Manager, Rivers State Newspaper Corp.,
Nigeria
Felix Adenaike, Chief Executive,
Syndicated Communications Ltd, Nigeria,
checks the daily papers
11
12
13
11
12
13
(from left to right)
Fatuma Kiboro, Kenya;
Hauwa Isa and Ismaila Isa,
CEO, New African Holdings Ltd, Nigeria
(clockwise from left)
Johann Fritz, IPI Director;
Piotr Niemczycki,
Publisher & Vice President
of the Management Board,
Gazeta Wyborcza – Agora SA, Poland;
Milan Kucan,
former President of Slovenia;
Tadeusz Mazowiecki, former
Prime Minister of Poland;
Sergei Kovalev,
Human Rights Activist
and former Ombudsman, Russia
U.S. delegates John Johnson, Editor,
Watertown Daily Times, Watertown, New York
(left), and
Charles Eisendrath, Director,
Knight−Wallace Fellows, University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor, Michigan
14
15
16
14
15
16
79
Mike Awoyinfa, Managing
Director/Editor−in−Chief,
Sun Publishing Ltd, Nigeria (left),
interviews
Peter Preston,
former Chairman of IPI
and Director,
Guardian Foundation, UK
Lech Wałęsa, former Polish
President (left) and
Johann Fritz, IPI Director
at the Royal Palace
Johann Fritz, IPI Director (left)
and
Lech Kaczyński,
Mayor of Warsaw, at the Warsaw
Institute of Technology

TUESDAY 18 May 2004
The Manifold Problems
of Media Concentration
Chairperson and Introduction
Wanda Rapaczyńska,
President, Agora SA, Warsaw
Panelists
Bruce Brugmann,
Editor and Publisher,
San Francisco Bay Guardian, San Francisco, CA
Russell Mills,
Dean, School of Media and Design,
Algonquin College, Ottawa;
former Publisher, Ottawa Citizen, Ottawa
Kai von Schilling,
Managing Partner,
Roses Business Consulting;
Member, Supervisory Board,
Mannheimer Morgen, Mannheim
Beppe Severgnini,
Columnist, Corriere della Sera, Milan
Danuta Waniek,
President,
National Broadcasting Council,
Warsaw

A Twofold Challenge
Ithink that there is probably no one in the room
who will disagree that plurality of media voices is
a necessary fundament of an effective, democratic
system. Beyond that, nothing is quite simple.
Our topic presents a twofold challenge.
One, what do we mean when we talk about media
concentration? Is it, for example, only a matter of
many – and how many – newspapers in the different
markets? Or how many different media outlets exist in
the same market? Or do we worry about ownership of
media by industrialists, by manufacturers, by businesses?
Are we talking about share of revenue or
share of mind? Are we talking about local, regional,
national or global markets?
Two, what is media pluralism, how do we define
it and how do we measure it? Who should be in
charge in measuring and minding media pluralism?
The second issue is particularly difficult and on this
subject I speak from experience. The moment we put
the issue on the table we are discussing the relationship
between the media and the state. Since the role of
media is to criticise authorities, to provide another
pillar of control of elected officials, the question of
The Power of
the Conglomerates
Let me give you three quick snapshots of the U.S.
media landscape at the moment. How bad it is,
the damage and some remedies and counterattacks.
In the good old days, just 21 years ago, in 1983,
media critic Ben Bagdikian wrote in his classic book,
"The Media Monopoly", that 50 companies in United
States dominated most of the national media. That
was 50 companies in 1983. In 1987, he wrote that
it was 29 media firms. In 1990, it was 23 media firms.
In 1992, it was 14 media firms. In 1997, it was ten
media firms. And in 2004, this year, in his latest,
seventh edition, the number was down to five big
media firms.
The shrinkage of the media has had
a profound effect on American
politics, culture and society.
I called him up on the telephone and I said,
"Ben, have you ever been interviewed by any of these
firms and their networks and their stations?" –
how politicians control media markets is a delicate
one. This, in my opinion, is particularly true in new
democracies, which are still struggling with establishing
a modus vivendi between the media and the
authorities of the state.
On the one hand, media is an industry like any
other. And like any other, it is subject to anti-monopoly
rules. On the other hand, it is an industry,
particularly its information segment, like no other.
It has a societal mission to fulfil and the mission by its
very nature is irksome to those in power. Therefore,
on the subject of media regulation, the issue is not
only what regulation and how much of it. It is also
how to ensure transparency and eliminate hidden
political agendas where the objective is not to protect
the consumer but to limit the free media.
There is an interested and growing body of analytical
and research work on the issue of the relationship
between media concentration and pluralism
worth reading because evidence often does not bear
out many commonly held beliefs. But I have good
news. We will not go over the research today. Instead
we will hear from practitioners from different markets.
because he is the reigning expert in the U.S. on this
issue – and he said, "No." This proves the point to me
that, not only is there this kind of media concentration
in the U.S., but it is generally blacked out by the
media and the major practitioner is not even interviewed
on any of these channels or networks to make
the point.
The shrinkage of the media has had a profound
effect on American politics, culture and society and,
in my view, as a stand-alone, independent publisher of
a competitive, alternative paper in San Francisco, I
see among other things that the power of the big
media conglomerates has moved the country far to
the right politically. It has given the U.S. the "Clear
Channelization" of America and a "Clear Channelization"
of San Francisco. This is a reference to the
Federal Communications Commission, the FCC, and
its easing of restrictions on radio licences so that
Clear Channel Communications, a Texas conglomerate,
is able to gain 1,204 radio licences in the U.S. with
something like 200 employees. Now you can work
81
Wanda Rapaczyńska
President, Agora SA,
Warsaw
Bruce Brugmann
Editor and Publisher, San
Francisco Bay Guardian,
San Francisco, CA

Beppe Severgnini
Columnist,
Corriere della Sera,
Milan
that out and see how that works.
Let me make this point with two examples. In
Minot, North Dakota, Clear Channel has six radio
stations. A train had a wreck. Poisonous gas escaped
and the police needed to get the news out immediately
about the impending disaster. They went to each
one of the Clear Channel stations. There was no one
in the office. There was no one in the state of North
Dakota. Six stations were managed by remote control
out of San Antonio, Texas.
In San Francisco, we have Clear Channelization.
In one of the world's great liberal cities, we have ten
Clear Channel stations operated in the same way. We
have half the billboards in San Francisco controlled
by Clear Channel. They control the concert venues,
including two of the big stages and auditoriums. And
now, for the first time in American history, they have
control of a 20-year contract that allows them to put
up newsstands to control the daily circulation of the
newspapers in San Francisco. A formula is going to
roll out through the rest of the country, from sea to
shining sea.
The power of the big conglomerates has also
moved us, I think, into the war with Iraq. Significantly,
as the nation moved to war last year, the conglomerates
had billion dollar reasons to support President
Bush. The conglomerates were again asking for major
concessions from Bush's FCC and in June 2003, the
FCC granted them in a 3 to 2 vote. The Bush agent
pushing the conglomerate agenda was the FCC chairman,
Michael Powell, son of the Secretary of State,
Colin Powell of UN fame and the justification for war
on mass weapons of destruction.
There was another reason for support of the
broadcasters. They knew if they angered the Admin-
Watch Out
Iam no expert compared to many other people
here, but I do live in Italy and Italy is indeed a very
unusual case now and something that I think people
in the newer democracies in Central and Eastern
Europe should look at carefully, because it is something
that can happen everybody.
There are perhaps two or three countries, let's
make it six, in Europe, that, because of reasons that
we will see in a moment, are safer from this point
of view. The point of view is obviously that we have
a government that owns all or most of private television,
and controls public television. This is a problem.
I consider television to be a much bigger problem in
my country and probably everywhere and I will tell
you why in a moment.
82
istration, they could be penalised or fired or fined, or
their broadcast licences could be challenged, which is
what happened to the Washington Post after Watergate.
Nixon threatened the Post that if they did not
stop their Watergate coverage, he would move on
their TV licences. He did, and it cost the Post millions
of dollars to defend themselves and that was a shot
heard around the country, in every broadcast station.
Now, there is some good news. There has been a
massive countermovement in the U.S. against consolidation
and, in particular, against the FCC rules. We
have more than 100 media reform groups at work,
from the National Rifle Association on the right, to
moderate and progressive groups in between and on
the left. They have managed to stall, through
Congress, the 3 to 2 vote on the easing of the FCC
restrictions. It is a historic moment in American
media history. They managed to do it because they
managed to put media reform as the second item on
the agenda of Congress. The first one, of course, was
the war. The second was media reform and they are
inter-related.
Then there is the alternative press. That is where
I am going to end. My wife Jean and I founded the
Bay Guardian in 1966 and, in a sense, helped popularise
and dramatise the alternative press, a press that
is alternative to, and competitive with, the daily
monopoly combine. We have in the U.S. pretty much
only one-newspaper towns, all but a couple of cities.
So, the alternative press has come into that vacuum, a
growing vacuum, on local news. We have created
weekly papers, free papers that help set the political
agenda and help set the cultural agenda of the community
and take these issues of media concentration
right down to the grassroots of the community.
As you know, my Prime Minister, Silvio Berlusconi,
promised to solve conflict of interest in a hundred
days. Over a thousand days passed and nothing
happened. What is worse is that people do not care.
When I say people do not care, conflict of interest is
not really on the top of peoples' worries. We have
economic problems, we have price rises, we have
Iraq, and conflict of interest is not a real problem.
It is not a real problem and will not be a problem;
people will not feel conflict of interest as a problem
until television starts talking about it. Television is
the core of the problem. It is a Catch-22, but try to
explain your anxiety to the Italians.
One Italian out of ten reads the newspaper.
Everyone watches television. I know it is now very

fashionable to say that people can form their own
opinions from the Internet or whatever. Yes, it is
true that people who navigate the Internet, read
newspapers, listen to the radio, can make up their
own minds, but the bulk of an electorate, even in
a Western G-8 country like Italy, still make up their
mind depending on television.
If you control television you can do lots of
things. You can avoid sending out certain news
that the government does not like. You can have a sort
of glorified report about whatever the government
does. There is a system, which we in the media call
a "sandwich" – "il panino" – which means that first
you tell what the government wants you to tell, then
you tell what the opposition says, then you say again
what the government wants you to tell. This is
very effective. The listener and the television viewer
will remember the beginning and the end, not what
is in-between. This "sandwich" technique is used
now in Italy.
Italy is not an authoritarian regime. It is not a
tyranny. Democracy is not at peril, but we are not in
good shape. Very often my colleagues happen to be
employees of the Prime Minister, which makes things
a little difficult, as you can imagine: They will say,
"Well, Mr. Berlusconi didn't take too much advantage."
It's true that one channel is for the opposition,
and some of his own channels are careful, but the
point is that to leave these matters to the good will of
the most powerful and richest man in the country is
madness.
We have a new law about TV that was passed
and approved by the government and again is
favourable to the government. I want a television law
in Italy, and possibly not only in Italy, with two articles.
One, if you are in government, hands off the
media. Two, no one can have more than one nationwide
television station. I know that the problem of
media concentration can be manifold, as the title of
this session says, but I believe that the solution is in
three words: competition, competition and more
competition.
Sometimes, if you have a long tradition behind
you, like in Britain, then competition and competition
twice is enough, but three is better. Take Rupert
Murdoch. I am doing a programme on the media, on
Sky Italia, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch. I
know the problem of Rupert Murdoch and I know
that people in Britain, in the U.S., in Australia, will
have a lot to say about this. But I can tell you honestly
that in Italy Sky Italia, as a newcomer, is the only
TV station where I could say, "If you want me to host
a television programme, I only want to do a programme
about freedom of information and diversity
and all that". And they had to say yes. There is only
one channel where I could do this in Italy now. And it
happens to be Murdoch. Not because he is good, but
because he happens to be a newcomer and he needs
market share. I am not interested in what Sky's
motives are, but they happened to coincide with mine,
because Sky is a newcomer and a small one in Italy.
So there are cases where I think that the right things
for us journalists can be the profitable things for a
publisher, which I think is fair enough.
Italy is not an authoritarian regime.
It is not a tyranny.
Democracy is not at peril,
but we are not in good shape.
I think the problem we are facing in Italy, and
which we do not discuss enough, has to do with the
media and the role of journalists. Are we watchdogs
or are we players? In Italy, I have plenty of colleagues
who say, "We hate the left so much that we want to
play the game." Or you have people on the left who
say, "We hate Berlusconi so much that we want to play
the game." I have a few friends who decided to run in
the European elections. H.L. Mencken once said that
the relationship between a journalist and a politician
is like the relationship between a dog and a lamppost.
I like that very much. I tell my colleagues who went
into politics, watch out because you move among the
lampposts, watch out what happens to you.
There are lots of other things that I would like
to say, but I think that it is more than enough for now.
But watch out. Italy is a country where we believed it
could not happen, but it did happen. I think that it
can happen anywhere, apart maybe from Britain.
That is the exception. I can see it happening in France
and Germany if my French and German colleagues
are not careful.
83

Russell Mills
Dean,
School of Media and Design,
Algonquin College;
former Publisher,
Ottawa Citizen,
Ottawa
Media Ownership in Canada
It is difficult to follow someone from Italy on
a panel about media concentration, because as
serious as the rest of our situations are, they seem
pretty minor compared to the combined media
tycoon and prime minister. But concentration of
media control has been a significant factor in Canadian
public life for the last 60 or 70 years. There have
been three major government inquiries into this and
there is one going on right now. This is partly an artefact
of our geography. We are a relatively small media
market, right up against a very large media market,
and 90 percent of Canadians live within 200 kilometres
of the American border so they receive all the
broadcast signals from United States.
To counteract this, the Canadian government
established in the 1930s a state broadcaster, the Canadian
Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) Radio. In the
1950s, they added a television network and for many
Canadians this was their only source of non-American,
Canadian programming. This went on for
decades, so many Canadians got used to having one
source of broadcast news in the country.
The newspaper industry was also highly concentrated.
For decades two newspaper companies,
Thompson and Southam, controlled more than
50 per cent of the daily newspaper market in the
country. In the 1990s it got even worse when Conrad
Black, the principal of Hollinger Corporation,
bought most of Southam's and Thompson's newspapers
and for about three or four years, he owned
57 of Canada's 102 daily newspapers. This is truly an
astonishing amount of control in that industry.
He sold those newspapers in the year 2000 to
a company called CanWest Global, moved to Britain,
entered the House of Lords, and his next stop may be
a prison cell because he is now being investigated for,
among other things, racketeering in how he ran his
company.
The new concern is about cross-ownership and
by that I mean a single owner owning both print and
broadcast in the same market. Canada had a rather
informal policy against cross-ownership and in 1982
it became formal when the Canadian Radio-Television
Commission, which is our broadcast regulator,
was instructed by the government not to allow any
more cross-ownerships. They would not issue broadcast
licences to anyone who owned a print medium in
the city. We had an election in 1984 and a new conservative
government, and they scrapped that policy
as one of their first initiatives. So since 1985, we have
84
The new concern is about cross−
ownership and by that I mean
a single owner owning both print
and broadcast in the same market.
had no restrictions on cross-ownership in Canada
whatsoever.
Shortly after that, a decade or so later, came the
business strategy of convergence. Since all the media
were converging to digital delivery there was a feeling
that use by consumers would also converge and therefore
media companies could not just own one medium
they had to own all of them in order to serve their
customers and that led to a lot of acquisitions. A big
telecommunications company called Bell Canada
Enterprises bought the largest private network, CTV,
and Canada's national newspaper, The Globe and
Mail. They have been a rather benign owner; they do
not use the two media for much more other than a little
cross promotion. A Quebec printing company
named Quebecor bought a TV network called TVA in
the province and a group of English-language
tabloids called Sun Media.
CanWest Global, which bought Conrad Black's
newspapers, is the second largest private broadcaster
in the country. They sold many of their newspapers
but kept 13 of them in Canada's major cities. So they
have newspapers in Vancouver, Montreal, Calgary,
Edmonton, Ottawa and a national newspaper published
out of Toronto in addition to broadcasters in
all of those outlets. This gives them some remarkable
levels of control in those cities.
In Vancouver, for example, they own both of the
daily newspapers and two television stations, so they
have 100 per cent of the daily newspaper market and
70 per cent of the TV news market. So the people in
Vancouver get almost all their news filtered through
the company. Next door in the province of Alberta,
they own the major newspapers in the big cities of
Calgary and Edmonton and broadcast outlets in
those cities and there are other high levels of concentration
in other cities across the country too.
Now they have not been benign owners and they
used their newspapers to advance their own views and
even their own business interests. This is most visible
in their coverage of the Middle East, where you will
find nothing remotely sympathetic to the Palestinians
in any of those newspapers or broadcast outlets, and
their relentless attacks on the CBC, which they present
as a high-minded attack on a state broadcaster
but is actually an attempt to eliminate a competitor
for advertising and programming. And finally they
like to support and protect their political friends. I
was fired by them two years ago as publisher of the
Ottawa Citizen for publishing some material that they
felt was too critical of the Canadian Prime Minister
at the time, Jean Chrétien.
Now as a result of some of these things, the
Senate of Canada has begun an inquiry into the state
of Canada's media. They issued an interim report last
month and we are expecting a final report with some

ecommendations early next year. I think the most
helpful recommendation would be to recommend a
reinstitution of the ban on cross-ownership to prevent
this very high level of concentration in certain
Canadian cities but, unfortunately, I am pessimistic
that anything will come of it. Concern about this
pops up periodically in Canada, but there just is not
any sustained public interest or concern about it. The
situation is quite different than the situation in the
United States, where the move by the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) to ease limits on
concentration led to a backlash in the Congress.
Media ownership in Canada is more concentrated
than it is in the U.S. but Canadians seem less concerned.
I think this is partly because our companies,
while big by our standards, are not global giants like
Time-Warner or Murdoch or Disney and also
because of the fact that Canadians think that they
can always rely on our state broadcaster, the CBC, to
provide good, independent news reports, and it is true
that they usually can.
Some media companies have testified before our
Senate Committee and they use the old excuse that
because of the Internet now, people have more
sources of information than they have ever had before
so any restrictions on ownership are totally outdated
and unnecessary. That is not true, because in Canada
many of the most visited sites are owned by the big
media companies and although there are certainly
sources of international news and to some extent
national news and opinion on the Web, they are not
Iam not going to offer a comment on behalf of the
Polish legislators, because I cannot deliver any
information on their behalf, but let me tell you the following.
The slogan of capital concentration in the
media had been absent from our debate and that had
been for a number of reasons. Firstly, in Poland, we
had to actually build a free media market before that
phenomenon could make an appearance in our discussions
as a dilemma or a problem to resolve.
I work for the National Radio and TV Council.
I have been with that Council for three years and for
the previous ten years I had been an MP. I was watching
the process of building a free media market from
the other side of the barricade, that is from the viewpoint
of legislators. We started building that market
in 1993 when in Poland we passed a new law, a new
radio and TV bill, and today, if I were to answer the
question whether that particular market of free elec-
for local information. So people in Vancouver, Calgary
or Edmonton cannot really get information
about their city councils and provincial news and
business on the Web. They have to rely on their
traditional media to do that and most of the research
that I have seen and commissioned in my time in
the newspaper business indicates that most people
will not spend more than 30 minutes a day informing
themselves, except in special circumstances. So even
though the richness of the Web is there, it is just
not practical for most people to try and use it.
They will still rely on the traditional media to get
their news.
As we all know, a healthy democracy requires an
informed public and the public will not be adequately
informed in most cases if the sources of the
information are in the hands of the people who are
going to use it to promote their political and business
agendas. I would like to see the government of Canada,
as I said, reinstitute a ban on cross-ownership, but
I realise while this may be a Canadian solution, it is
not a universal solution. At this meeting that we are
at now we have heard of at least two examples, one in
Korea and one here in Poland, where the government
has introduced a law, ostensibly to promote media
pluralism, but in fact the net result would have been
to muzzle some of the government's critics. So you
have to be careful when you rely on government for
help because you may not get the help that you wanted
and the motives may be somewhat different than
you hoped.
The Polish Media Market
tronic media actually exists in Poland and whether it
shows pluralism, I would be absolutely adamant in
telling everyone it is. I would answer in the affirmative.
We have been building the market for 10 years.
That market offers diversity both in terms of capital
ownership and in terms of opinions presented.
For the sake of today's discussion, I prepared a
couple of statistics. I do hope that those statistics will
help you answer the question whether or not we have
in Poland a diversified media market. Obviously, it
would be much easier for me to speak if I had had
another representative of the young free media market
on this panel, if not from Poland than from
another socialist state, because my panel colleagues
have much more extensive media experience than has
been Poland's fill so far. However, it has always been
my pleasure to repeat during such debates that,
according to experts, the Polish media market has
85
Danuta Waniek
President, National
Broadcasting Council,
Warsaw

Kai von Schilling
Managing Partner,
Roses Business Consulting;
Member, Supervisory Board,
Mannheimer Morgen,
Mannheim
excellent experience and quite significant achievements.
That definitely allows us to qualify or classify
Poland as one of the best organised free media markets
in Europe or in this part of the world.
If we take a glance at the roadmap of broadcasters
then we can definitely talk about three very
serious nation-wide broadcasters in Poland. We have
three supra-regional licences granted, 210 local
licences granted, whereas the local feature is not only
the distinguishing factor, because it has to be said that
their content is extremely diversified. Our media
roadmap also features broadcasters connected to the
Catholic Church. Archdioceses and dioceses of the
Catholic Church have been granted 44 licences.
We have a variety of commercial TV broadcasters,
including two nation-wide broadcasters and two
regional ones. We have very strong public media that
obviously owe their strength on the one hand to a
good starting point, as well as to sound legal protection.
They are accountable for their so-called mission,
which means that they have to follow what has been
listed in detail in our Radio and TV bill. Specific
funds, public funds, have obviously been allocated for
the purpose of enabling those media to pursue their
mission.
Presently, the topic of media concentration is particularly
hot in Germany. Our Minister for Economic
Affairs, Wolfgang Clement, as well as our
Chancellor, Gerhard Schröder, are victims of heavy
lobbying by all large German media houses. Managers
of regional newspaper groups discuss it under
the pressure of significantly decreasing advertising
revenues. The federal anti-trust-organisation is
preparing for the last big battle and even the journalists
have begun writing about it.
Jesting aside, politicians are presently seriously
considering the liberation, or should I say the mollification
of the anti-trust-legislation for newspaper
ownership in Germany.
So what are the problems we want to address?
Certainly not any possible post-merger problems.
Actually, if I would try to discuss the merger of two
neighbouring printing facilities you would probably
be very surprised. Presumably, you would not see
a problem. Admittedly, I would not either. What
we as press enthusiasts really fear is "opinion concentration".
86
Thus, if I were asked again whether we have
managed to organise a pluralistic, electronic media
market in Poland, I would definitely have to answer in
the affirmative. Moreover, I am actually convinced
that it would be difficult to question that opinion.
We have been building the market
for 10 years. That market offers
diversity both in terms of capital
ownership and in terms of opinions
presented.
The problem of capital concentration in the
media appeared two years ago and I am very sorry to
say that neither the political decision-makers nor the
public opinion had been fully ready to deal with the
problem, to define it, or to set up a sound set of legislation.
Two years ago, Parliament made an attempt
to amend the Radio and TV bill under our conditions
that those attempts be made with a very strong attack
of the liberal economic circles and certain pressure
groups. Regrettably, that amendment failed in the
Parliament and today Poland actually has no legislation
to prevent capital concentration and certain disadvantages
on the media market.
A Strong and Prosperous
Regional Press
To get a better understanding of the situation,
let us take a quick glance at German history.
In addition to Hitler's propaganda and political
brutality, his alliance with a certain Alfred Hugenberg,
a press baron of the time, was one of the main
factors that brought him to power. It is unnecessary
to say that totalitarianism and free speech do not go
together and consequently independent publishers
disappeared for more than a decade.
Later on, the founding fathers of post-War Germany
expressed their high valuation of freedom of
speech and the freedom of press in the 5 th paragraph
of our Constitution. To assure these rights our allied
friends also helped us, reorganising the media landscape.
As a result, we still find a very potent and selfconfident
local and regional press in Germany.
I should say that in Germany after the war, certain
individuals got a licence from the Allies and
licence owners were picked because of their political
responsibility that they had shown in the pre-War
area or because they had been part of the resistance
against Hitler.

But this strength not only came from good journalism.
A prosperous economy, increasing circulation,
an advertising sales force that just had to find
enough space to place the ads, and last but not least
missing competition made editorial independence for
publishers a lot easier.
Today, a typical regional newspaper publisher
faces a myriad of serious competitors in the market.
Free sheets, billboards, local TV and radio stations,
Internet publisrs of all kinds, not to mention eBay
and Google, and last but not least a significant
change in the needs and demands of our customers
makes life as an independent regional publisher more
and more difficult.
In addition, we are faced with a situation close
to regional monopolies in large parts of Germany.
Combining both aspects, we find a strong
opinion that supports the concentration process. But
if we would generally agree – would we be able to
picture a satisfying scenario.
For a strong and peaceful Europe we need
strong and self-confident regions. A change in the
shareholders' structure, however, could concentrate
the press on a national level, which could result in a
dilution of regional competence.
In times like these, when political as well as clerical
propaganda is used and misused to manipulate
the public opinion, we might ask the question if it is
not just way too perilous to allow the possibility of
media concentration at all. After all, the best shield
against manipulation is a variety in opinions.
Does it get any better if we allow other industries
to buy into media in general or on a larger scale
into regional publishing entities in particular? Maybe
not, as it is hard to imagine that the owner of a chemical
or defence industry plant would remain loyal to
the idea of independent news rooms as soon as it
touches his core interests. But even if he remains
loyal, is not taking the risk of failing too dangerous
for him to leave to chance?
Today, a typical regional newspaper
publisher faces a myriad of serious
competitors in the market.
In my opinion, there is nothing much more
important for a living democracy than a strong, independent
and prosperous regional press. As I tried to
point, out most changes to the present situation will
lead downhill. Therefore, to assure that we will not
have to discuss the "Manifold Problems of Post-
Merger Integration" the next time we meet, we have to
think even more about ways to assure stable revenues.
New market opportunities, including digital products,
interesting joint ventures and strategic alliances, a
shift from thinking in formats rather than in contents,
and maybe even the cutting off of some of our corporate
luxuries are topics we have to seriously consider.
I think both the freedom of press and a pluralistic
society are worth it.
87

TUESDAY 18 May 2004
Globalisation and
Transborder Investment by Media Companies
Chairperson and Introduction
Konstanty Gebert,
Journalist, Author and Media Consultant;
former Vice Chairman, Media Development Loan Fund, Warsaw
Panelists
Stig Finslo,
Director, Orkla Media, Oslo
Ryszard Niemiec,
Editor-in-Chief,
Gazeta Krakowska, Cracow
Jacques Pilet,
Head, Media Development, Ringier AG, Zurich
Martin Simecka,
Editor-in-Chief, SME, Bratislava
Petr Simunek,
Deputy Editor-in-Chief, Mladá fronta Dnes, Prague
Andreas Wiele,
Member of the Board;
President, Magazines and International Affairs,
Axel Springer AG, Hamburg

Fears, Concerns and Protests
The geographical composition of our panel means
that we will be dealing mainly, but possibly not
exclusively, with developments over the past dozen
years in Central and Eastern Europe. But what a
dozen years! I do not think that there has ever been,
in the contemporary history of the media such a massive
transfer of capital, technology and expertise, as
during the successful buy-out of so many media in
our region by different foreign companies.
This movement has generated fears, concerns
and protests – historically and psychologically understandable,
given the fact that a majority of Polish
local media and the quasi-totality of Czech
local media are now the property of German companies.
It will be very interesting to hear from our
panelists whether there is, in fact, substance to those
fears.
Some are based on the kind of concerns that all
employees of multinational corporations have, i.e.,
that decisions will be made in remote headquarters;
that local staff will not be promoted, etc. Other fears
deal with issues of interference in editorial policy, or
the risk of selling away national interests. Again, I
will be asking our panelists to refer to those fears and
to see if they are justified.
Other concerns have been more concrete. In a
well-known case several years ago in this country, two
newspapers had accused the President of inappropriate
friendship with a suspected Russian agent. The
foreign owner of one of those newspapers immediately
apologised to the President for "unfairly" attacking
him and the newspaper withdrew its investigative
campaign. A wise move as it turned out, because the
allegations could not be substantiated in court, yet it
gave rise to legitimate comments that not journalistic
integrity, but rather fears of having problems with his
The daily SME is 50 per cent owned by the German
publishing house, Verlagsgruppe Passau,
and 50 per cent by the founding company. This
50/50 arrangement is quite unusual for Verlagsgruppe
Passau and I think that Slovakia is the only place
where it has this kind of deal. All around Central
Europe they have big, big majorities, even 100
per cent, and also I think that their plan is to eventu-
business deals in Poland, was the reason for the
owner's move.
In a more recent development in Poland,
Newsweek Polska, published by Springer, had been
very strongly criticised for an article on the restitution
of Jewish property, which was widely perceived
as pandering to anti-Semitic resentment. But critics
went beyond that and accused the German owner
of Newsweek Polska of unfairly dealing with
Polish-Jewish issues, as if the content of that article
was an issue of ownership of the paper and
not of editorial decisions by its management.
However, if we are so scared of foreign investment,
why is it that we so desperately want it? Indeed,
when you look at the media scene today in our country
and compare it with 12 or 15 years ago, the
changes are dramatic and deep, and could not have
occurred without the massive foreign investment that
generated all those fears. The foreign investors
brought in technology, expertise, and capital for
development. It would be interesting to see if it came
with political or business strings attached, but we are
dealing with a market in which capital always does.
So is it really true that a foreign investor will be more
dangerous for the independence of a newspaper than
a local one or a state owner?
To sum up, unfortunately more and more journalists
think of media more as a trade than as a mission.
Adam Michnik was right to remind us that producing
newspapers is not the same thing as producing
shoelaces. Media without a sense of civic mission will
be bad and uninteresting. But, on the other hand,
media is a business and I do prefer to discuss business
with tradesmen than with missionaries. We have a
panel of, hopefully, six very interesting tradesmen and
I turn the floor over to them.
Taking Away the Sense
of Mission
ally get the majority in our company.
Until now, the story has been successful for two
reasons. One is that the foreign investor has brought
the money to help us expand in technologies. We
bought new printing machines; the technology
increased our quality. We bought a new building. So
all these things are good for the paper. But they did
not bring any kind of know-how, which was a sur-
89
Konstanty Gebert
Journalist, Author and
Media Consultant; former
Vice Chairman, Media
Development Loan Fund,
Warsaw
Martin Simecka
Editor−in−Chief, SME,
Bratislava

Stig Finslo
Director, Orkla Media,
Oslo
prise. This had one advantage, because they left all
management posts and editorship in Slovaks hands.
Until now, I am quite satisfied with the situation.
Talking about the fear of whether the foreign owner
can influence the paper itself, I would say that this has
been quite exceptional as well. I meet the owner regularly
once a year in Bratislava at a Christmas party,
and that is all I know about them. We just chat. We do
not really speak seriously about the paper. So has
been my experience that the owners exert no influence
at all with regard to my work as editor-in-chief, and I
have to say that, as far as I know, this is quite an
unusual situation in Slovakia. But it is based on the
history of the paper. The founders, the Slovak financial
group, founded the paper in 1993 with the aim of
building an independent newspaper at a time when
Slovakia was in bad shape as far as democracy was
concerned. Until now, it has been a goal of this company
to build a very independent paper and rely on
independent editors.
The problem is that the foreign investor has a
plan to win a majority in the company by 2006. I
would be quite nervous if this happened and I would
probably think about whether to stay in my position
if this happens. I told my Slovak owner that I did not
90
Producing a paper is a business,
but without a mission it has no sense,
at least not for me.
eople will think what I tell them to think",
"P declares the newspaper tycoon, Charles
Foster Kane, in the legendary film, "Citizen Kane".
These few words express the basic reason behind any
media regulation law.
In my opinion, there is only one reason to regulate
the media differently than from other business
activities, namely to safeguard the free exchange of
ideas in such a manner that no single person or no
single private or official authority can take a dominant
position of peoples' minds.
The problem with media concentration is not
whether few or many companies are making a profit
out of their business activities, or whether the ownership
is solely national or not. The problem
of media concentration is its effect on the democratic
processes in our societies. There is no obvious
answer to the question of how we can avoid a scenario
of misuse of media power. In my opinion it is
both acceptable, legally and morally, to adopt laws
wish that the foreign investor should obtain the
majority in the company. I think this is because of the
fears that Konstanty Gebert was talking about. It
may be irrational. It may be possible to get an agreement
and a charter of independence for the paper in
its relationship with the owner. But to tell you the
truth, I do not believe very much in these kinds of
charters.
To me, the publisher is the most important person
in my work. I have to count on him letting me
work as an independent man. I have a suspicion that
that will not happen, because what I know about Verlagsgruppe
Passau is that their idea is to build a big
network of local media. They are not interested in
political life or political issues but in producing a
profitable network of periodicals. I very much agree
with Adam Michnik. Producing a paper is a business,
but without a mission it has no sense, at least not for
me. I think that along with foreign investors comes
the lack of that mission. I see it in Slovak papers that
are owned by foreign investors. They brought technology,
but they took away the political engagement.
I do not mean a political engagement that is partial to
one or the other party, but that the paper should deal
with the political life of the country. The foreign
investors, according to my experience, are pushing the
papers to withdraw from that kind of mission. This is
my biggest fear. Not the political influence but, on the
contrary, the foreign investor who does not want any
kind of political influence or interest.
A Help or a Hindrance?
and national or international regulations to prevent
investors from buying control over public institutions
in such a way that they consequently might gain total
and unwanted political and economical control.
I am participating in today's debate as a representative
of a foreign investor, and as such regarded
as a possible threat to the political pluralism in
the countries where we operate, for instance here
in Poland.
I do understand these worries in principle.
But I do not always understand them from a practical
point of view.
My basic attitude is that a diversified and
nationally based media ownership is better than a
concentrated ownership dominated by foreign
investors. But this attitude needs to be harmonised
with the values that the media regulation laws should
protect and the values and principles of the owner,
whether the owner is national or foreign.
There are too many examples proving that

nationally based ownership guarantees neither media
pluralism nor political pluralism. On the contrary, it
could be the other way round. Look at Italy. Or take
a closer look at the situation here in Poland.Today's
debate takes place in a country where the government
owns and controls four national television channels
and four national radio channels, and through political
manipulation has threatened different independent
media companies in a way described by the European
Federation of Journalists as "a violation of
European standards of freedom of information". One
of our papers, Rzeczpospolita, in which we are
majority owners, has at this very moment 20 cases
pending against its journalists in the court system.
Through investigative reporting those journalists have
revealed corruption, but the official response is to
make criminals out of the journalists, rather than
protect them.
Furthermore, I should point out a rather unique
situation in the newspaper market. Namely the fact
that the Polish government owns 49 per cent of the
shares in Rzeczpospolita. In principle, it is disturbing
that a government should own a major and influential
daily. And it is even worse when they, as owners with
the political power in the country, have tried through
different means to use this power to get control
over the paper.
Streamlining of the media with regard to editorial
content and political attitudes is, as a common
rule, not the result of the work of international media
companies, but of nationally based ownership. However,
international media ownership in general
and ownership in countries like Poland in particular
places special obligations on us. Ownership must be
exercised in accordance with local traditions
Iwould like to share with you the Czech perspective.
My point of view may sound a little naive and
maybe, for my British colleagues, who have this bitter
debate about Axel Springer knocking on the door of
the Daily Telegraph, even strange, but I have to say
that I am very happy having a foreign investor, even a
German investor, in my newspaper.
I think that, for the time being at least, in our
part of the world – and I am speaking really about a
country that is in transition – it is better to have a foreign
investor, because it will protect you better from
the pressures of domestic politicians and domestic
and the enlightened understanding of some fundamental
values.
Last year, Orkla Media adopted
a publishing declaration that could
prevent the kind of foreign ownership
that many people fear.
And this brings me to the values that our media
group like to express. Last year, Orkla Media adopted
a publishing declaration that could prevent the
kind of foreign ownership that many people fear.
This declaration should safeguard both pluralism and
editorial freedom. Besides defining the media owner
as defenders of press freedom, we define the publishing
houses as unique, local institutions that need to
be developed in accordance with their history and
with the community where they are located.
This means that Orkla Media might own papers
with different political platforms and that we do not
have any political agenda with our ownership.
Finally, we have stressed the independent position
of the editor and even introduced an editorial
magna carta in the "Charter of the Editor". In this
document, we define the role of the editor as the one
who carries out "the newspaper's mission, fulfils its
objectives and guarantees its independence."
Based on this, I would conclude that foreign
ownership is not a hindrance for the development of
independent media. Carried out in the right way and
as long as it is communicated clearly to the public, it
might be a highly needed prevention against disinformation
and mind control.
Happy to Have a Foreign
Investor
financial groups. Martin Simecka said that he will be
a little nervous if the Verlagsgruppe Passau wins the
majority in his newspaper. I am not nervous anymore
because the Rheinisch-Bergische Verlagsgesellschaft
already has 99 per cent in our newspaper, but what I
want to say is that they are not involved in Czech politics
or in Czech economics apart from the media
business, which is very important because this is not
true of the domestic groups.
In the Czech Republic, there are no groups that
concentrate only on media. You have many financial
groups; they invest in electricity, the auto industry,
91
Petr Simunek
Deputy Editor−in−Chief,
Mladá fronta Dnes,
Prague

Jacques Pilet
Head, Media Development,
Ringier AG, Zurich
and financial sectors. Besides this they also own
media. They try to use the media as a vehicle to enhance
and promote their interests and not the interests
of the readers. So you can buy every Monday
a special economical and financial weekly which is
owned by the strongest Czech financial group and you
can read in every issue something about the promotion
of this group or the competition with other
groups. In other words, I think that the domestic
groups are still very much involved with the politicians.
They have to have good relations with the politicians
because they are still trying to buy something
from the government and I think this is dangerous
and not a good basis for an independent newspaper.
I think it is also true that an experienced owner,
or an owner coming from a country with a longer tradition
of a free press, may help you in setting standards
for your newspaper. This is the case at my
newspaper. They invested not only in printing
machines and newsroom systems and so on, but also
in know-how. They care about education in the newspaper
and a code of behaviour in the newspaper, and
so on. This is not the case in newspapers owned by a
domestic group. At the moment, there is only one
nationally distributed newspaper and it is owned by
the Czechs. In this newspaper, it is very easy to buy an
article on the front page and this is not possible in our
newspaper. This is not possible to do if you have an
owner who is convinced that freedom of speech is
something essential.
Talking about Pluralism
The Swiss Ringier Group is very concerned about
the question of pluralism in Central and Eastern
Europe area and we are happy to speak frankly about
it. Establishing its presence in the Czech Republic,
Slovakia, Hungary, Romania and most recently in
Serbia, the Ringier Group publishes around 40 newspapers
and magazines across these countries. The
business involves amounts of about one third of all
total sales. This share continues to rise and we will not
leave it at that.
After publishing losses for quite a while, we
never lost faith, even during the worst times. The
activity in the East today is not only lucrative, but
also brings deep satisfaction through the intellectual
and professional exchange of experience. We have
learned a lot working in this part of the continent.
Cold commercial strategy is an important effect of
business but so is chance and human emotion. This
adventure would not have been possible without the
continued interest and support of the group's presi-
92
Of course, there are also problems connected
with having a foreign investor, because they do not
fully understand the culture. They do not fully understand
the reality and sometimes it is very hard to
explain why we want to do this or that. Sometimes it
is very hard to persuade them because they think that
what works in Germany will work in the Czech newspapers
as well, and this is not true. But this is not such
a big problem.
I think it is also true that
an experienced owner,
or an owner coming from a country
with a longer tradition of a free press,
may help you in setting standards
for your newspaper.
Sometimes you can have a problem concerning
the background of the owner of your newspaper. It
may be that the owner of your newspaper comes from
Germany and has a background as a publisher of
regional newspapers and now he has to run a national
newspaper, which can cause problems sometimes.
Of course, you can have also problems if your
owner has problems in his domestic market. You can
experience cost cuts in your newspaper because of the
problems in Germany. But I still think that it is much
better to have those problems than to have a domestic
owner who is involved in all these political and
economic issues.
dent and owner, Michael Ringier.
Economic success is a priority for him but certainly
not an exclusive one. As a humanist, he is a
believer in the European cause. For him and for the
company management, reality is not limited to facts
and figures. The political, social and cultural welfare
of a country is just as important as economic scope.
Let us talk about pluralism. We all agree that
without diversity there cannot be any real freedom of
the press, which in turn is only an empty phrase without
the presence of economically viable newspapers.
This is the dilemma that the competition authorities
are faced with today. They have to watch over a
diverse media landscape and, at the same time, must
not prevent the existence of powerful groups that
are able to survive difficult times and maintain editorial
independence in the face of the pressures exerted
on them.
Groups that publish several newspapers, as is
the case with Ringier, particularly in the Czech

Republic, Hungary and Romania, must adhere to
strict standards. Starting with the respect for local
teams, their culture, their identity, and their needs.
Our contribution is, first and foremost, an economic
and technological one. As for editorial content, the
publisher must act with utmost restraint. Surely he
can advise the journalist as to how the information
should be presented, sharing his experience and helping
the teams meet the readers' expectations. But it is
not for him to exert any political influence. The only
existing limit for us is the respect for democracy. We
could not tolerate that one of our titles falls prey to
forces trying to undermine it or stir up sentiments of
racial hatred and xenophobia.
Within the same company, newspapers and
magazines can express a wide range of sensibilities. In
fact, it is in the publisher's own interest. Nothing is
more dangerous than a levelling of contents. Pluralism
is not only an economical or legal challenge. Pluralism
needs creativity, talent, intellectual independence,
and political courage.
As foreign publishers, we can contribute to a
free and democratic media landscape. It was in this
spirit that we went to Romania 12 years ago while the
situation in the country was still critical, not only economically
but also in political terms. And in the same
spirit, we have just acquired a popular daily newspaper
in Serbia, where investors are not exactly tripping
over each other. We are proud to see in this troubled
region journalists addressing the public at large without
selling their souls to populist and warlike agitators.
Our presence in the area represents a gamble on
hope. We like to think that in the next ten years, the
Balkans will overcome the fever of nationalism and
find its way to democracy and prosperity.
Does the strong Western presence in Central
and Eastern Europe in any way prevent the emergence
of a national media? Let us not fool ourselves.
It does render the creation of new press groups, both
local and foreign, more difficult. However, nothing
suggests that immobility prevails in this landscape
and there well may be surprises in store. We
believe that committed entrepreneurs will help create
a new and formidable competition to our own
papers everywhere, and it is all for the better. The success
of Gazeta Wyborcza and the media group Agora
lead the way
Let us hope that one not so distant day, the competition
in the media, as well as in many other fields,
will move from East to West and not only from West
to East. For in this part of the continent, you have a
tremendous asset. I am talking about vital energy.
Despite the current economic instability, your young
people firmly believe that with hard work and an
environment of freedom, they will do better than
their parents. Conversely, in Western Europe, especially
in countries like Switzerland, France or Germany,
the majority feel that their lot will be less rosy
than that of their parents.
We all agree that without diversity
there cannot be any real freedom
of the press, which in turn is only
an empty phrase without the
presence of economically viable
newspapers.
The conviction that progress is possible sends
out a powerful message to society and private companies.
This could very well turn around the image of
the balance of powers we have of today. No, we do
not threaten pluralism, but rather we enforce it. No,
we do not smother local initiatives, we feel delighted
about them. Yes, we are here to do business, but we
hope that we are here also to support the diversity
and freedom of the press.
All the Freedom It Takes
Gazeta Krakowska is a regional daily appearing
in the Malopolska region of Poland. It has
a daily circulation of 45,000 and a Friday circulation
of about 100,000. The history of Gazeta Krakowska
is indeed intriguing. In 1980, for 13 months and
13 days, Gazeta Krakowska was probably the first
in the Socialist countries to break the party-cum
-state monopoly. Its popularity went far beyond
the borders of the Malopolska region. The party
establishment, particularly the hard-core party
-liners, fought strongly against it. Yet from the
very beginning the paper dared to be very supportive
of the Solidarity trade union, which led to 25 of its
best journalists being fired after 13 December 1981,
when Martial Law was introduced.
Perhaps this would not have been such an
extreme disaster were it not for the fact that Gazeta
Krakowska as of then became a party paper. Until as
late as April 1990, when all the other papers in Poland
had realigned themselves to freedom and democracy,
Gazeta Krakowska continued to propagate real
socialism. I say this to illustrate and explain the massive
decline of its popularity. This new paper despised
"the legendary 13 months and 13 days." People lost
93
Ryszard Niemiec
Editor−in−Chief,
Gazeta Krakowska,
Cracow

Andreas Wiele
Member of the Board;
President, Magazines and
International Affairs,
Axel Springer AG,
Hamburg
trust in the paper. They stopped believing in it and
stopped buying it.
The Process
of Internationalisation
Ithink that today's debate is a very important one. I
always try to put myself into the other side's shoes
and if the same dominance of foreign-owned media
would exist in Germany, we would certainly have a
similar, even stronger debate. So I have a very strong
understanding and sympathy for these fears.
We have now heard three testimonies from editors-in-chiefs
that foreign-owned media, diversity and
the independence of media can go very well together
indeed. Let me start out by telling another brief story
of how strong and misjudged views can be. We
already mentioned today that Axel Springer is reported
to have an interest in purchasing the Daily Telegraph,
which I cannot comment upon because it is
obviously a confidential matter. But it has been
reported in the press and as a result a subscriber of
the Daily Telegraph wrote a letter to the chairman of
the Telegraph saying, "If you ever sell this newspaper
to a foreigner, I will stop my subscription and I have
been reading it for 30 years." The chairman of the
Daily Telegraph responded, "It seems that if you
don't want to read a newspaper anymore because it is
owned by a foreigner, you should have cancelled your
subscription in 1986, because that is when we sold our
newspaper to a Canadian." So things are not always
94
The question now is
how much freedom does
the individual journalist
and editor have?
As a result of the collapse of the RSW party
publishing group, the paper was the first in Poland to
be privatised. The paper was bought by a Polish
investor. Thus, in the context of what we are saying
here today, it must have been the perfect investor.
Unfortunately, it was all nice and dandy for only a
very brief period. The limited funds were soon depleted;
the paper tottered on the point of bankruptcy.
Only then, in 1993, did a new investor, the wellknown
French publishing group, Hersant, arrive on
the scene. Starting from that moment, the paper
began to be dramatically upgraded, but its main concern
was to regain credibility in the eyes of the public
and we fought hard to win this credibility step by step.
We did this by making very carefully balanced steps.
But first of all the foreign investor gave us freedom in
terms of the editorial content.
In 1996, against the will of the team, the paper
was taken over by Passauer Neue Presse. The question
now is how much freedom does the individual
journalist and editor have? How much freedom in
terms of presenting their views, demonstrating their
talent? Well, I can say definitely that there is all the
freedom it takes. There is no internal censorship.
There are no instructions or advice being given in
terms of the content.
But we do have our fears and our concerns,
especially when we look at the experiences of other
papers, three or four evening papers, which were
owned by the same group and which were merged
with other titles that belong to Passauer Neue Presse.
I think greater determination could have been displayed
by the investor in terms of maintaining these
titles at least to give an opportunity for launching
some kind of turn-around programme. We, too, fear
the possibility of such a merger.
as bad as they seem.
Let me now tell you a little bit about Axel
Springer and some issues that we had to face in our
recent development. Axel Springer was founded in
1946 in the aftermath of World War II. Axel Springer,
founder of the company and a journalist, started out
launching newspapers and creating a publishing company
that is based on some very fundamental values,
which guide us until today. These values are not only
the values of the independence of journalism and
freedom of speech, they are also in support of the free
market economy, the unification of Europe, and reconciliation
with the Jewish people after World War
II, a matter that was close to Axel Springer's heart
and is still part of the company's basic principles.
We started our process of internationalisation in
1988 in Hungary, where we have been newspaper publishers
now for the past 16 years and have, frankly
speaking, never encountered any significant problems.
We have been criticised by the opposition, we
have been criticised by the government, which is perfect.
A good newspaper or magazine should be criticised,
ideally, by all sides. That shows that you do not
fear to tackle delicate political matters. We have made
it a principle to allow our editors-in-chief – within the

limits of the core values that I described – to tackle
any issue and take the stand they wish to take. That
has served us well throughout our internationalisation.
We also have another principle and that is we try
to employ as much local staff as possible. Currently,
we have 2,000 people working for Axel Springer
abroad. Only two, and the number has just doubled
from one to two, are Germans. All the other editors
and management, with these two exceptions, are local
staff, because it is very important to fully understand,
not only on the editorial side but also on the management
side, the cultural and political background of a
country if you want to operate successful newspapers
and magazines.
One other very important guiding principle of
our company is that we are purely a publishing company.
We do not do anything else. I think that history
has a lot of examples, be they foreign or local media
companies, where they have other interests. We have
heard some examples here today of those who have
an agenda that is not only an agenda of publishing
good journalism.
So these are our publishing principles that have
guided us, and still guide us, in our extension in
Poland where, as the second country after Hungary,
we have ventured into publishing political papers. We
started Newsweek in the fall of 2001 and our new
newspaper, Fakt, in October 2003. Both are tremendous
successes and show that we can also create and
enrich diversity by launching and not purchasing,
which is one of the strengths of our company.
Recently, and that demonstrates one of the difficult
parts of internationalisation, we encountered
specifically one problem, which certainly was a problem
due to our foreign ownership. Mr. Gebert already
alluded to it. That was an article in Newsweek, a
cover article that dealt with the problem of the restitution
of Jewish property in Poland. The editor, who
is an excellent editor-in-chief, made in our point of
view an error in judgement in the cover and in some
parts of the article, although he himself lost part of
his family in the Holocaust. He made an error of
judgement and in the aftermath apologised for it. We
chose not to intervene.
We try to employ as much local staff
as possible.
We chose non-intervention for two reasons.
First, because of our principle that we leave it as
much as possible to our local management and editors
to run the newspapers, and also simply because
we are not equipped, strange as it may sound, to monitor
all of our publications everywhere and every day.
The full extent of the problem did not reach us early
enough. I do not know if we truly should change that
or not and monitor all our newspapers and magazines
every day. That is open for public debate. I think that
we are right in our principles and I think that this very
unfortunate incident is one that could also have happened
to a local media company.
95

Organizers & Partners
AGORA SA Media company (daily newspapers, magazines, local radio stations, outdoor
advertising and Internet). Publisher of Gazeta Wyborcza – daily quality newspaper.
Axel Springer Polska Sp. z o.o. Publishing house (magazines, daily newspaper). Publisher of the Polish edition
of Newsweek and Fakt – national daily.
Gruner + Jahr Polska Publishing house (magazines). Publisher of the Polish edition of National Geographic
and Glamour.
Polish Chamber A chamber of commerce representing business interests of its members with regard
of Press Publishers to their publishing activities, in particular vis a vis authorities and local governments.
The Chamber represents 114 press publishers.
Polityka Spółdzielnia Pracy Publishing house (magazines). Publisher of weeklies: Polityka and Forum
and quarterly Res Publica Nowa.
Polskapresse Sp. z o.o. Regional press publishing group (regional dailies, TV supplements,
part of Verlagsgruppe Passau advertising weeklies, media house, Internet).
Press Monthly earmarked for journalists, marketing managers, employees of public
relations and advertising agencies as well as for all those who co−operate with
and have a keen interest in the media.
Presspublica Sp. z o.o. Publishing house (national and local dailies).
and Orkla Press Polska Publisher of Rzeczpospolita – national quality daily.
Radio Polonia Public broadcaster for foreign audiences (seven languages) short wave,
The External Service satellite, cable, World Radio Network, Internet, direct broadcasts and relays
of Polish Radio S.A. in local radio stations abroad.
Radio ZET National private radio station.
SDP Polish Journalists' Association. The oldest nationwide professional journalists'
organisation in Poland. SDP runs CMWP – Press Freedom Monitoring Centre.
Telewizja Polsat S.A. Broadcaster (TV station, thematic channels, digital platform).
Broadcaster of Polsat – national general entertainment channel.
TVN, TVN−24 TVN – national general entertainment channel.
part of ITI Group TVN 24 – national 24−hour news channel.
TV Puls National TV channel.
Tygodnik Powszechny Catholic weekly.
UPC Broadband communications company
United Pan−Europe Communications (cable and satellite TV, Internet, thematic channels).
VFP Communications B2B media and education company:
Media & Marketing Polska magazine, Modern Media Institute.
Warsaw Voice S.A. Publishing house. An English−language weekly – The Warsaw Voice – publisher.
ZKDP Association of employers (publishers, advertising agencies, advertisers
Audit Bureau and distributors) collecting and verifying information about circulation
of Circulations Poland and distribution of press to provide accurate and reliable data.
Member of International Federation of Audit Bureaux of Circulations (IFABC).
97

TUESDAY 18 May 2004
Presentation of the ”FREE MEDIA
PIONEER 2004” Award
Awarded to the Central Asian
and Southern Caucasian Freedom
of Expression Network (CASCFEN),
Baku
Azer Hasret
Chairman, CASCFEN
Gazeta Wyborcza's
”MAN OF THE YEAR”
Award Ceremony

2004 IPI
Free Media Pioneer
Awarded to the Central Asian
and Southern Caucasian Freedom
of Expression Network
(CASCFEN), Baku
Johann P. Fritz, Director of IPI
This year our award winner is the Central Asian
and Southern Caucasian Freedom of Expression
Network (CASCFEN).
In August 2001, six media organisations from
Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and
Uzbekistan created the Baku-based network to better
coordinate press freedom activities in the region.
CASCFEN's founding members met in Baku,
Azerbaijan, in March 2003 for their first General
Meeting and adopted a Charter and the Baku Declaration
on Principles of Observance of the International
Norms Regarding Mass Media, thereby officially
launching the network. CASCFENS's declared
aim is to "protect freedom of expression and of the
press," as outlined in Article 19 of the United Nations
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, by sharing
information, coordinating the efforts of press freedom
groups within the region, protecting the rights of
journalists, and campaigning for better press freedom
conditions.
Today, CASCFEN covers press freedom developments
in Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan,
Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and
Uzbekistan, as well as in Iran and Turkey.
CASCFEN operates in a region that is known
for harsh government restrictions on independent and
pro-opposition media. The closure of independent
media outlets and the criminal prosecution of independent
journalists, as well as more subtle tactics
used to control the media, are common throughout
the region and have led to a climate of intimidation in
which self-censorship is growing. Violent attacks
against journalists are also on the rise, making the
profession more dangerous than ever.
Against this backdrop, CASCFEN strives to
improve the dissemination of news and information
both within and across national borders
and actively participates in efforts to further and safeguard
press freedom in the region.
For these reasons, CASCFEN has been named
our Free Media Pioneer for the year 2004 and I would
like to call on its co-founder and chairman, Azer Hasret,
to come up and receive the award.
Azer Hasret, Chairman, CASCFEN
It is a great pleasure for me to receive this award
on behalf of all those journalists and media workers
who now suffer under the repression of harsh regimes
in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and other countries in
the region. Many of you probably know of the very
harsh conditions under which journalists are working
in our region. Indeed, we need great attention from
the international community and, of course, we are
doing our best to achieve press freedom and high
press standards in our region.
That is why I am very grateful to IPI and the
Freedom Forum for awarding CASCFEN with this
Free Media Pioneer award and I hope my network
and, at the same time, IPI and the Freedom Forum
will help the journalists in our region. I am thankful
to both your organisations.
99
Azer Hasret
Chairman, CASCFEN,
Baku

from left to right:
Wanda Rapaczyńska,
Johann P. Fritz,
Bronisław Geremek,
Adam Michnik.
Gazeta Wyborcza's
"Man of the Year"
Award Ceremony
Adam Michnik, Editor−in−Chief, Gazeta Wyborcza, Warsaw
The past recipients of the Gazeta Wyborcza's
"Man of the Year" title, which we have been awarding
since our 10 th anniversary, have included Vaclav
Havel (1999), George Soros (2000), Sergei Kovalev
(2001), Joschka Fischer (2002), and Günter Verheugen
(2003). Today, for the first time, we are awarding
the title to a Pole. On behalf of Gazeta Wyborcza
and Agora, today, in the presence of the participants
of the IPI World Congress and on the 15 th
anniversary of Gazeta Wyborcza, I have the honour
to deliver a laudation in honour of Bronisław Geremek.
Few people have done so much to make Poland
independent, democratic and a free market. The
task was not simple. Bronisław Geremek more than
once had to grapple with Polish absurdities.
Bronisław Geremek never mentions his contribution.
If asked who gave us a free and sovereign
Poland, he would probably name: Pope John Paul II,
Lech Wałęsa, Czesław Miłosz, Zbigniew Herbert,
Wisława Szymborska, Leszek Kołakowski, Jacek
Kuroń, the first non-Communist prime minister
Tadeusz Mazowiecki, the great reformer of Poland's
economy Leszek Balcerowicz, and finally Aleksander
100
Kwaśniewski. That is all true, these are the Polish legends,
the significant personalities on the Polish road
to freedom and Poland's road to Europe. But I can
attest that Bronisław Geremek was the brain and the
heart on this road.
Twelve years ago Gazeta Wyborcza wrote the
following about Bronisław Geremek: "An ironic
mind, an eminent intellectual, a smart politician with
firm principles. This is the briefest description of this
man who has evoked so much admiration but as
much envy. On his sixtieth birthday we wish to congratulate
the Professor on all of this, to thank him
for his history with the Solidarity trade union, opposition
and prison. We thank him for his excellent
books and lectures. We thank him for his consistent
and wise defence of democratic values in Poland's
Parliament, for strongly defending Poland's position,
its cause in the world and the stubborn and effective
way of building Poland's international authority. We
wish him good health and good luck."
Today, I repeat these words and these wishes,
adding a few words of commentary. Bronisław Geremek
is a great witness and creator of our times, as
well as a victim of our times. Miraculously saved
from the Holocaust, seduced by the universalist ideas
of Communism in his youth, he broke ties with the
Communist Party in 1968 after the Soviet intervention
in Czechoslovakia where, unfortunately, the Polish
military was also involved. For the rest of his life,
he remained a democrat true to his Polish and European
identity. How to describe this identity? First and
foremost, it is sensitivity to the fate of the excluded,
the poor and the defenceless. As an historian, it was
to them that he devoted his excellent historical opus.
An eminent expert on medieval Europe, a participant
in the Gdansk Shipyard strike in August
1980, a leading adviser to the Interfactory Strike
Committee, one of the leading personalities of the
Solidarity movement, a prisoner under Martial Law,
a participant in the Solidarity underground, a creator
of the Round Table negotiations, a leader of the Solidarity
Parliamentary Caucus, chairman of the Free-

dom Union, chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee
in the Polish Sejm (parliament), a minister of
foreign affairs, who brought Poland into NATO.
In Bronisław Geremek's biography, we can find
a message about the place of a historian in public life.
Bronisław Geremek reminds us that searching for the
truth should lead to readiness to defend it and serve
it, to stand for what is just and fair, for fraternity and
freedom. This message of Professor Geremek is
reflected in his life and work.
Dear Bronek, 13 years ago you wrote, "The
main problem of post-Communist Central Europe
is lack of public patience, disappointment and
discouragement, a deficit of hope. This is when an
authoritarian temptation appears, when widespread
distrust becomes apparent, when scapegoats are
sought. The history of 20 th Century Europe knows
these moments of the weaknesses of democracy
and what they brought on the world. The future
of Central Europe, indeed, depends on its ability to
oppose the climate of closing in, of separation and
fundamentalism. It depends on its ability to build an
open society."
I treat these words, Bronek, as your message
and an assignment for us, your friends from Gazeta
Wyborcza.
Bronisław Geremek, Polish Politician and Historian; former
Minister of Foreign Affairs
I am deeply grateful to Gazeta Wyborcza for
deciding to make me part of their 15th anniversary
celebration and for what has been said about me. The
only thing that remains for me to do is to respond in
an equally beautiful way.
Before I actually proceed, let me inform everybody
that I am quite a picky reader when it comes to
Gazeta Wyborcza. I keep complaining. I tend to disagree
with what I read six days a week. Nevertheless,
if I am truly such a reader, it is because I have been
tied to Gazeta Wyborcza ever since its inception.
Gazeta Wyborcza is truly my own newspaper. This
newspaper is closely bound with the legend of Soli-
darity and the personality and talent of Adam Michnik
and his team of journalists.
The first component is absolutely obvious
because it is tantamount to the freedom movement
headed by Lech Wałęsa and it has been with independent
Poland right from the very onset. The second
component may seem equally obvious but it requires
some commentary. Adam Michnik is not only an editor.
He is not only part of the dissident community of
Poland and the world but he is also one of the most
important historical writers. He is a visionary and an
intellectual. He is a poet and a thinker. One could go
and discuss the bad features of Adam Michnik, but
he himself actually writes about them in order that
others not to do it first.
This celebration coincides with 15 years of free
Poland. We are celebrating this anniversary at a time
when all that remains for us to do is to realise that not
all our dreams have come true. Sometimes we are
quite bitter when realising that we have not always
been able to use our freedom to its best purpose. Nevertheless,
those 15 years are a beautiful time in Polish
history. Tadeusz Mazowiecki already said that this is
a miracle for our people. I believe that those 15 years
are to everyone's credit. I do believe that when looking
back at those 15 years, we may be very proud that
we have managed to strike the correct path and that
it stems from the imagination and sacrifice of 40 million
people.
These 15 years of an independent Poland, of
being part of the European and Euro-Atlantic community,
have not been a gift from anybody. It is a
result of our struggle and our work. Poland is independent
and does not have to fear her fate any longer.
This is exactly what we ought to remember, what we
ought to bear in mind when looking back at the last
15 years. We should always bear in mind the role
played by the free media and Gazeta Wyborcza in the
process.
I am deeply touched and very grateful to be
receiving this award presented to me by Gazeta
Wyborcza. Thank you.
101

TUESDAY 18 May 2004
Introduction
Hugo Bütler,
former Chairman of IPI;
Editor-in-Chief, Neue Zürcher Zeitung,
Zurich
Speaker
Marek Belka,
Prime Minister of Poland
Closing Remarks
Adam Boniecki,
Editor-in-Chief,
Tygodnik Powszechny,
Cracow

The Man
for the Special Task
As we all know, it can be hard to gain one person's
confidence, let alone the confidence of an
entire parliament. Marek Belka, whom I have the
honour to introduce today, is currently in the process
of trying to gain the trust of the Polish legislative, and
there are a lot of good reasons to assume that, in the
end, he will succeed. I say this because, if we look at
his career, we quickly realise that we are dealing with
somebody whom our American friends would call an
"achiever."
Marek Belka has indeed achieved a lot. He is an
outstanding scientist, a renowned professor of economics,
with a vast number of books and articles to
his name. He counts as a liberal, a liberal in the European,
not the American, sense of the word. The topic
of his dissertation was Milton Friedman, the herald
of open markets and minimal state interference. He
has, nevertheless, never been a dry theorist. His preferred
topics, anti-inflationary policy and the economics
of transition, clearly indicate that he belongs
to the small caste of scientists who are bold enough to
test their findings in reality.
The best indicator for this form of engagement
is his participation in the efforts to build a new Iraq.
Risky territory indeed! In October 2003, after serving
for several months as Chairman of the International
Coordination Council in Iraq, Belka was appointed
Director for Economic Policy in the Coalition Provisional
Authority (CPA), an honourable call that indicates
not only America's gratitude for Poland's active
New Chances,
New Opportunities
It is my honour and pleasure to speak before this
very distinguished audience on such a marvellous
occasion. The fact that the International Press Institute
has decided to hold its Congress in Poland for the
first time, two weeks after Poland joining the European
Union, may indeed serve as an occasion to share
some reflections with you on the path Poland has
taken over the last years, on the role of the media in
this process, and on the future.
Fifteen years ago we started a long march. It
seemed to us absolutely impossible that we could
solidarity during the war against Saddam Hussein,
but also the high esteem Belka enjoys in Washington.
This comes as no surprise, since he has worked
as a consultant for the Washington-based World
Bank since 1990. Before that, Belka served twice – in
1997 and from October 2001 until July 2002 – as
Poland's Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister.
He was, and is, the man for the special task. In
1997, he was called to tackle the highly sensitive problem
of pension reform, in 2001 to balance the budget.
Iraq offered welcome new challenges until he
received the call from President Kwaśniewski, which
brought him back to his home country. Despite
belonging to a party not always known for its fondness
of capitalism, Marek Belka is deeply rooted in
the capitalist world. He served as a senior advisor to
JP Morgan for Central and Eastern Europe and was
a member of the board of several leading companies.
His counsel is famous and much sought after.
Between 1997 and 2001, he advised the Prime Minister
of Albania, from 1996 until 1997 and from 1998 to
2001 the Polish President. Since 1998, he is a member
of the Trilateral Commission.
Being the future Prime Minister of Poland is not
in every regard an enviable task. To reduce Poland's
high unemployment and the budget deficit to acceptable
dimensions, to stabilise the somewhat shaky currency
and to guarantee steady growth is, to put it
mildly, a Herculean challenge, a job that demands
stamina and a vivid imagination.
indeed wait 15 years before we joined the EU, while
our EU partners found it absolutely impossible and
incredible that it would take Poland only 15 years to
join the EU. Those were our starting positions. I
think those 15 years were absolutely the best in modern
Polish history. We have managed to catch up a lot
over the span of those 15 years, managing to bring
about such a variety of changes in each and every
area of life.
After those 15 years, we should, on the one
hand, feel nothing but proud. On the other hand, we
103
Hugo Bütler
former Chairman of IPI;
Editor−in−Chief, Neue
Zürcher Zeitung,
Zurich
Marek Belka
Prime Minister
of Poland

are definitely tired and slightly pessimistic. We are
afraid of whether or not we are going to be successful
in the EU. We are afraid of conquering the EU. We
are afraid of the EU conquering us. Over those 15
years Poland has undergone a number of changes
tantamount to 150 years of experience for more
mature economies. The cost of transformation has
indeed been high, as can be seen in the 20 per cent
unemployment that we are going to be struggling
with for the next couple of years in Poland. Moreover,
this spinning world of changes makes people
hanker after stability and normality. Hence, we are
now entering the EU wondering what on earth our
future shall be. I have absolutely no doubt as to what
awaits us. We are going to be positively surprised,
more often than not.
We will be facing new chances, new opportunities
relating to new markets, new opportunities for
education. We have to start feeling that ourselves
before we actually start believing it. Obviously, it will
not come at the same time for everybody. It is quite
beyond question that young, educated people are
going to be the first to experience it, but it will affect
us all. I am deeply convinced that this is what is going
to happen and I am an absolutely unqualified optimist
with regard to that particular circumstance. But this
does not mean that the path is not going to be stony.
Now what do we actually want to mean in the
European Union? What are we trying to achieve within
it? Let me say the following. When glancing back
over the past 15 years, I must say that we have mostly
gotten a good example from our EU neighbours. We
have been taught how to educate. We have been
taught how to organise ourselves. We have been
taught how to set certain standards, not to mention
the fact that we got some money. So we got a lot of
good examples, a lot of assistance and some money.
Now, what do we have to offer Europe? Definitely
some dynamism. We often as not complain. We
are pessimistic and we are tired of reforms, but in
comparison with the resistance and reluctance to
change in our neighbouring Western communities, we
are indeed a volcano of change. I do think that what
happens in Poland within one week could easily be
matched against months and months of developments
in Germany or France. We are tolerant to
change, but we are obviously tired.
Let us stop and think what we have already
managed to give to the EU and what we shall continue
giving. Well, definitely hunger for success. We are
ready to work. We are ready to learn. We are ready to
toil for less, which is why we should not be the ones
fearing the EU. Our competitors ought to start fearing
what is going to be happening here. The utmost
absurdity that we keep hearing is that the Polish agricultural
sector shall be the first victim of the EU.
That is absolutely absurd; it is grotesque, ridiculous.
They are going to be the first beneficiary. I do believe
that the Polish food-processing sector is going to be
104
experiencing a period of great economic boom over
the next years and I would not be surprised if our
German or French competitors were to start being
anxious. Obviously, it is in our nature to complain,
but I do believe that the reality shall be totally
reversed.
Nevertheless, the European Union or indeed
Europe has never been a source of extra money to us.
This has never been a purely economic project. In
Poland, the European Union has become a symbol of
prosperity, stability, and democracy. The European
Union had also been a dream, which means that it is
absolutely not true that Poland does not wish to be
part of further EU integration. It is absolutely not
true that we are incapable of showing trust in the
European Union or Poland both forming entities in
foreign policy and common policy. It is not true that
we are not capable of introducing certain elements of
common defence. I am deeply convinced that Poland
shall have a major contribution to offer.
I also believe that Poland will make it possible to
protect Europe against a trap, against a pitfall that is
all about defining Europe in terms of anti-American
categories. I believe that this is an aberration of the
past one to five years. Especially under the conditions
of today's turbulent times, such a manner of defining
all things European in opposition to the United
States is not only dangerous, it is highly irresponsible.
Should anybody, very correctly, believe that Europe
should extend to Turkey, then how should that person
believe that we should be anti-American while having
a border in Turkey, in the Middle East? And how can
a person like that proceed and develop his or her
European dreams without a policy that would be not
identical but complementary to U.S. policy? How can
you begin to imagine the European Union to end or
stop at the Euphrates and Tigris with a concurrent
atmosphere as it is now between Europe and the
United States? Fortunately, that climate is slowly
changing because it was a feature of utmost stupidity
and Poles are very much aware of that. So this is
everything that we are going to bring into the EU:
dynamism and also a little bit of sobering up.
In closure I would like to say a few words about
the media. The media and the press are an extremely
ambivalent world for politicians because, on the one
hand, a politician cannot exist without the media. On
the other hand, media exert control, which is
absolutely obvious. Who wants to be controlled?
Hence we have this love-hate relationship. Hence the
ambivalence. On the one hand, we love journalists
because they make us happen. On the other hand, we
hate them because they show the skeletons in our
closet.
Ladies and Gentlemen, I believe that without
free media, without free journalists, there would be no
free Poland. Without the free press the quality of our
state would be much worse. But, if I may add, be the
Fourth Estate – not part of show business.

Solidarity and Human
Dignity
Ithank the organisers of the IPI World Congress for
having invited me to conclude this meeting. I am a
Catholic priest, but for the past 40 years I have also
been a journalist and, for my generation, an event
such as this congress being held in Poland is indeed
very moving – a congress about freedom of speech,
the decency of the media, and the right to information;
not a demonstration of protest, of dissidence
against someone, but a true sharing of experience.
Treating our mutual experience seriously is a great
experience, because the experience of being closed in
a world of censorship is one that you cannot imagine
unless you have been exposed to it yourself.
The host committee of the World Congress told
me that inviting you to Poland is a form of debt
repayment because in those horrible times a ventilation
channel providing us with oxygen had been provided
to us by media in the free world. We had
friends, we had contacts, and we were absolutely certain
that should anybody hit us here, the resonance
was going to carry into the free world. This is exactly
why the weekly of which I am editor-in-chief could be
established. In those times, Tygodnik Powszechny had
been an enclave of decency and freedom in the world
of Communism. Jerzy Turowicz, the first editor-inchief,
had set up a network of friendship with journalists
throughout the world. We are always very
frank in telling everybody that we are a Catholic periodical,
but it is a periodical for everybody and anybody
who is decent and open, which is precisely why
this enclave proved so difficult to destroy.
Ladies and gentlemen, over the past few days,
we discussed the tremendous problems of media concentration,
the tremendous problems of foreign
investment in the media. We discussed positive and
negative impacts. Apart from all that, global media is
about human solidarity. This solidarity was not
brought to the forefront of our discussions, but I am
very happy that the Congress ended with the presentation
of an award to the Free Media Pioneer. This
was definitely a signal.
The European Union was quite extensively discussed
in our debates, and we were again and again
reminded of decency and of information quality.
We wondered at what point in time media begin to be
a profit-making enterprise rather than a place of
public debate. When listening to the absolutely fascinating
comments and speeches, I was very much
aware and I actually realised that all these questions
are based upon the fundamental question about
the human being.
Everything starts and ends with the human
being, whether an oligarch, a politician, or a group of
politicians who start owning the media and who want
to use and abuse the media. But a good owner will not
try to sit down and write an article or prepare a piece
of news. That owner, the sound owner, will hire a
man, a human being, to speak about human beings.
Obviously, that means that we are going to have editors
and journalists – human life and blood – rather
than a piece of machinery. We are human beings
exposed to a variety of temptations, always bearing in
mind that we want to keep our jobs, a very simple
human need.
So the human being is at the heart, the very core,
of that machine, with his or her will to participate in
social life and with his or her right to decent information,
to true information, which one definitely needs
to communicate with society and form part of it. The
message of the Congress, which has been broken
down into a plethora of important details, actually
goes beyond a single postulate of the freedom of
speech. When we actually stop and think, the message
of the Congress is a message that takes on the form
of a challenge, an appeal for human dignity to be
protected.
105
Adam Boniecki
Editor−in−Chief,
Tygodnik Powszechny,
Cracow

Resolutions adopted by the
53 rd IPI General Assembly
on Monday, 17 May 2004
Resolution on Criminal Defamation
and "Insult Laws"
Meeting at its Annual General Assembly on 17
May 2004 in Warsaw, Poland, the IPI members unanimously
passed a resolution stating that laws making
defamation a criminal offence and "insult laws", giving
special protection for states and governments and their
officials by criminalising criticism, are illegitmate.
Prison terms are never justified for dissemination
of news and information or for expressions of
opinion, no matter how unsettling or offensive they
may seem to those involved.
Recent court judgments sentencing Polish journalists
to jail terms or suspended sentences for alleged
defamation are accordingly unjustified. There are
also numerous criminal charges pending against other
journalists in Poland. The IPI membership welcomed
President Aleksander Kwasniewski's statement at the
IPI World Congress on 16 May that he was willing to
undertake every effort to help change any legal provisions
in Poland that allow for such sentences.
The view that the criminalisation of defamation
is illegitimate is shared by the world's leading courts
such as the European Court of Human Rights, the
Inter-American Human Rights Commission and the
US Supreme Court. The clear trend of their opinions
is that defamation (libel and slander) should be treated
under civil law, to be adjudicated between the parties
by civil courts, not as criminal offences subject to
state punishments.
The UN Human Rights Commission has adopted
such longstanding positions of its various Special
Rapporteurs as that "sentencing to a prison term for
libel or defamation is clearly not a proportionate
penalty." A Commission-endorsed report by the Special
Rapporteurs stated in 1992, "Detention, as a negative
sanction for the peaceful expression of opinion,
is one of the most reprehensible practices employed
to silence people and accordingly constitutes a serious
violation of human rights."
A number of established West European democracies
continue to keep on their statute books outdat-
106
ed criminal defamation and "insult laws" that are generally
no longer used. Yet, their continued existence is
regularly cited by authoritarian or transition governmental
and judicial authorities to justify the active
use of such laws to silence news and commentary.
Established democracies should accordingly act swift
ly to remove such negative examples from their laws.
In recent years, some countries have fully or partially
revoked such laws. Those countries include
Argentina, the Czech Republic, Egypt, Ghana, Hungary,
Kenya, Moldova, Paraguay, Slovakia, Spain, Sri
Lanka. France has eliminated most jail sentences for
"crimes of opinion".
Those actions constitute clear recognition by
governments and courts that such laws are in gross
violation of everyone's right "to seek, receive and
impart information and ideas through any media and
regardless of frontiers," as set forth in Article 19 of
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
There are legal remedies in civil libel law against
perceived defamations. Moreover, as the world's leading
courts have held, public officials need to be
afforded less, not more, protection from defamation
than ordinary citizens if there is to be the free and
vigorous public debate which is the hallmark of a
democratic society.
The world's leading journalists represented in
the International Press Institute accordingly call on
parliaments to abolish such laws, on governments to
refrain from using them where they exist and to call
for their revocation, and on courts to refuse to invoke
them and to rule that they violate the fundamental
human rights of free speech and press freedom.
Resolution on Cuba
Meeting at its Annual General Assembly on 17
May 2004 in Warsaw, Poland, the IPI members unanimously
passed a resolution calling on the Cuban
government to uphold freedom of the press and freedom
of expression. The IPI members specifically condemn
the arrest and imprisonment of at least 28 journalists
in 2003.

During March 2003, Cuban authorities arrested
78 people including the journalists. Some of those
arrested had participated in the "Varela Project" that
gathered 11,000 signatures calling for an improvement
in human rights in the country.
In early April 2003, 14 courts across the country
stated that the journalists had been convicted of
"working with a foreign power to undermine the government."
They were given jail sentences ranging
from 14 to 27 years and are currently incarcerated in
maximum-security prisons around the country under
poor conditions.
The journalists' one-day trials were held on 3
and 4 April behind closed doors. Their lawyers were
given little time to prepare defences and, in some
instances, were prevented from meeting their clients
before the start of the trials.
The IPI membership strongly believes that the
failure of the Cuban government to uphold press
freedom and the right of a fair and open trial is not
only an affront to the right of individuals to express
themselves freely but also a ringing indictment of the
failure to introduce democratic reform in Cuba.
Moreover, the IPI membership is of the opinion
that the cruel and unjust behaviour of the Cuban government
towards journalists and human rights
activists is so prejudicial to the cause of human rights
that the Cuban government should be excluded from
the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.
Its presence on this commission is untenable,
undermining every attempt to improve human rights
around the globe and damaging the good name of the
United Nations.
Resolution on Iraq
Meeting at its Annual General Assembly on 17
May 2004 in Warsaw, Poland, the IPI members unanimously
passed a resolution stating that the state of
press freedom in Iraq gives rise to grave concerns on
several grounds, including:
safety of local and foreign journalists,
respect for press freedom principles by the authorities
within Iraq,
pressures by coalition governments on news media
outside the country to censor by withholding or altering
information and commentary.
So far this year, 14 Iraqi and foreign journalists
and other news personnel have been killed in the line
of duty. Several of those were killed in incidents
involving fire by US forces. Too often, soldiers have
seemed indiscriminate or reckless in their behaviour
toward journalists, investigations have seemed cursory,
and there do not seem to be sufficiently strict
orders and procedures to avert the repetition of tragic
events.
Members of the International Press Institute
call upon US and allied forces to conduct full investigations
of any and all such incidents and to publish
the reports in full. There must also be complete
exchanges of views between the military authorities
and the news media so that the risks of such incidents
are reduced to the absolute minimum.
While it is true that the military authorities are
confronted with a major armed insurgency, the
actions of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA)
against news media in Iraq create grave concerns over
how it understands the principles of free speech and
press freedom.
The outpouring of demonstrations and armed
violence by a large part of the population after the
CPA's 60-day closure at the end of March of the
Shi'ite weekly Al Hawza showed – if any demonstration
were needed – that bans of news media outlets
are both unwise and counterproductive, no matter
how inaccurate or unfair the authorities may deem
their reporting or editorials to be.
It was particularly striking that the CPA gave its
objections to a commentary comparing CPA administrator
Paul Bremer to former President Saddam
Hussein as one of the main examples of "incitement"
that Al Hawza was alleged to have made. The staff
replied that, if there is press freedom, such opinions
should be allowed.
There have also been repeated actions in Iraq
against journalists of the Arab-language satellite
news channels Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya, the outlets
understood to have by far the highest viewerships of
Iraqi audiences.
Not only has the CPA set poor examples for the
new Iraqi authorities on dealing with independent
press outlets. In Washington, DC, the Chairman of
the US Joint Chiefs of Staff has admitted calling the
US television network CBS to hold back the broadcast
of compromising photographs showing the abuse
of prisoners in Iraq. It is, therefore, no surprise that
Iraq's provisional governing council has also issued
bans on news media outlets.
Those in positions of authority in Iraq must not
only say they are working for press freedom in that
country. They must show that they mean it by allowing
the press to operate freely. Furthermore, they
must do their utmost to create conditions of safety
and full access to information so that journalists may
properly do their jobs of informing their publics.
Resolution on WSIS II (Tunisia)
Meeting at its Annual General Assembly on 17
May 2004 in Warsaw, Poland, the IPI members unanimously
called for plans to hold the second World
Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in
Tunisia in November 2005 to be abandoned unless
that country demonstrates its respect for human
rights, notably freedom of expression and press freedom.
Despite such calls, Tunisia continues to
imprison its journalists and other citizens for exercising
freedom of speech. On 6 April, eight young Internet
users were sentenced by a Tunis court to prison
107

terms of up to 26 years. The convicted Internet users
were accused of promoting terrorist attacks on the
sole basis of files that they downloaded from the
Internet.
Such actions show that Tunisia continues to violate
its commitments under the United Nations Charter
and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
to respect free speech and press freedom. The
Tunisian press is censored and journalists are jailed
along with hundreds of other political prisoners.
The United Nations Secretariat takes the position
that it is powerless to alter plans to hold the Summit
in Tunisia since these were set by a vote of the
member-states of the UN General Assembly.
There are nevertheless a number of important
questions that must be answered by Tunisia before the
established democracies, press freedom organisations
and human rights groups agree to attend such a meeting
in that country. These include the following:
Will journalists and all others jailed for expressions
of opinion or for reporting facts the Tunisian government
considers inconvenient be freed from prison?
Will there be assurances that there will be no further
prosecutions on such charges, which are contrary to
Tunisia's obligations under international human
rights law?
Will the Tunisian press, written and broadcast, be
allowed to report freely on the Summit and also finally
be granted its press freedom rights laid out in Article
19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
and the other international human rights texts to
which Tunisia is a party - and which Tunisia recommitted
itself to observe in the Declaration of Principles
and Plan of Action of the first World Summit
on the Information Society in Geneva in December
2003?
Will all foreign and local press freedom and human
rights organisations that wish to participate in the
Summit be allowed to do so, without threats, harassment
or administrative obstacles?
Will local and foreign journalists, as well as NGO's
and other civil society representatives, be allowed to
report and circulate freely in the country and to communicate
freely – including local and international
phone calls and using the Internet without any
restrictions, monitoring, blocking or censorship?
Will free access to websites and other sources containing
materials critical of Tunisia be allowed without
hindrance?
Will participants in the Summit be allowed freely to
publish and distribute at the conference site any written
or recorded materials, such as newspapers,
reports, pamphlets or leaflets – including those containing
questions, criticisms or information about
human rights abuses in Tunisia?
It is not acceptable for a Summit on the Information
Society to be held in a country with a restrictive
record on the most basic freedom of expression
principles.
108
Unless Tunisia gives its solemn assurances that
questions such as the above on respect for free speech
and press freedom will be answered in the affirmative
and without reservations, the international community
should abandon its plans to meet in Tunisia.
If Tunisia's answers to these questions are not
positive, IPI urges the Secretary General of the United
Nations to ask the General Assembly to reconsider
its decision. If satisfactory answers are not forthcoming,
the summit should be transferred to a country
known to respect press freedom, or be cancelled
altogether.
Resolution on Zimbabwe
The IPI members meeting at their Annual General
Assembly in Warsaw, Poland, are deeply concerned
at the continuing deterioration of the media
situation in Zimbabwe as a result of government
action. After the highly criticised closure at gunpoint
of the independent daily, the Daily News, the government
has issued threats against other independent
publications, the Independent and the Standard,
describing them as the "running dogs of imperialism".
This was followed by the government's Media
and Information Committee (MIC) threatening to
close a third newspaper, the independent weekly, the
Tribune, on a technical breach of the MIC's registration
rules.
In addition, the government made threats
against Zimbabwean journalists who act as correspondents
for foreign newspapers. They were accused
of sending "lying reports" about conditions in Zimbabwe
to these papers. The state-owned Herald newspaper
in the capital, Harare, issued threats that the
government planned to take action against these journalists
and a few days later Jonathan Moyo, the Minister
of Information in the president's office, declared
that Zimbabwean jails had space for "lying" journalists.
In view of these serious developments further
limiting the freedom of the press, the IPI members
decided unanimously that they have no option but to
retain Zimbabwe's name on the "watchlist" of nations
that are seriously eroding media freedom.
For Zimbabwe to be removed from the "watchlist"
a country must restore the media freedoms that it
has sought to destroy.
Resolution on African Union's NEPAD Initiative
The IPI members meeting at their Annual General
Assembly in Warsaw, Poland, expressed their
deep disappointment that the laudable African Union
initiative, NEPAD (New Partnership for Africa's
Development), has signally failed to include the vital
role of free and independent media as one of the criteria
for assessing whether its member nations comply
with the principles of good governance.
Under NEPAD, the African Union envisages

applying a "peer review" mechanism for member
nations who volunteer for assessment so that they
may qualify for donor aid and trade preferences from
the world's Group of Eight richest nations and members
of the European Union. Under NEPAD's only
good governance criteria are an efficient civil service,
effective parliaments with accountability and an independent
judiciary. No place for the media is envisaged
under these criteria.
The IPI members believe that the exclusion from
such a review of the essential requirement of a free
and independent media to conduct a "watchdog" role
over government is extremely serious and in consequence
any "peer review" finding that a nation has
complied with the good governance criteria will be
flawed. IPI members believe that the failure to include
such a requirement will encourage other African
states that a free media is not an essential element of
democracy.
In making this assertion IPI is aware that under
separate criteria assessing a nation's promotion of
human rights, a need for media freedom is mentioned.
However, this requirement is not specific to
good governance. The only reference to journalism
too is that it should be "responsible", a term which is
often used to limit media freedom.
The IPI notes that a country that does not
accord freedom to its news media would fail to qualify
for membership of the European Union – an indication
of the importance this group of nations
attaches to the role of a free media.
IPI members unanimously call on the African
Union urgently to rectify this omission and to insert
in the good governance criteria a requirement for free
and independent media.
In addition, IPI urges the African Union to
include as a requirement under both these sections an
undertaking by governments to commit themselves to
remove legislative restrictions on the media. They
should also reaffirm the values and principles contained
in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights.
109

www.ipikenya.com

Agora and
”Gazeta Wyborcza”
are
15 years old
May and June of 1989 were for us the days of great joy and hope. As everyone in Poland,
we joyfully welcomed the first real elections to the Parliament. With a sense of mission
and deep satisfaction we handed our readers, starved for the free word, the first copies
of "Gazeta Wyborcza". The history of our company has been uniquely tied to the history
of Polish transformation. For the last 15 years, pages of "Gazeta" bear witness to this great
story and to its reflection in hundreds of smaller human stories.
On May 1, 2004 another watershed event took place – Poland became a member of the
European Union, opening for Poland and for us a new chapter in the book of history with
new opportunities and new challenges.
We have 15 years of experience with democracy and market economy. Used well, it will
give us greater freedom and security in action, and our readers, clients and partners – the
right to expect the best from us.