Enabling Environment for Social Accountability in ... - SASANet

Social and cultural considerations also affect journalistic standards. For example, sports writers find it
difficult to criticize players because they are personally familiar or socially connected with many of them.
A mutual acquaintance may request that the journalist refrain from a negative or unflattering account, as
is also the case with politicians.
Moreover, media owners, who are all politically linked, exercise close control over political content,
which results in systemic biases in coverage. There are numerous accounts of editors who either refuse to
carry content or insist on a certain slant to a story. Thus, even highly qualified journalists may face
obstacles from their editors or the owners of the media outlet. In light of this, stakeholders have proposed
trainings for owners and editors as well as journalists.
Despite political slanting in the media, both major political parties are supported by outlets from each
media subsector. As a result, stakeholders repeatedly stated that they had to read numerous newspapers to
get a composite picture. There are, however, signs that the political polarization of the broadcast media
has decreased since the 2004 parliamentary elections and that Mongolia Radio and Television, now
PRTV, in particular, is becoming less biased toward the government and ruling party. Monitoring of the
media during the 2005 presidential election campaign indicated that MRTV had become far more
balanced (Globe International 2004, 2005a, and 2005b; Press Institute 2004b:25-26). It should be further
noted that politicization extends to various civil society actors in the media sector, who may, as a result of
their own involvement, fail to protest abuses of media freedom.
Another concern is the concentration of the media such as the vertically integrated media empire
controlled by Mongol News, as well as Igel’s growing network of local (aimag) newspapers (Press
Institute 2004a). At present, there is no specific regulation on the concentration of ownership in the media
sector or any proposal for such a legal reform.
The criminal and civil laws are the primary means for redressing harmful media content. However, this
form of redress is inaccessible for most Mongolians as it is a lengthy, expensive, and unreliable process.
On the other hand, when powerful economic or political actors initiate cases, the consequences are
oppressive for the media outlets and for the journalists. In many countries, self-regulatory or statutory but
independent bodies receive complaints from the public who claim to have been adversely affected by
media content. The idea of a self-regulatory press council has been discussed for some time in Mongolia,
but the serious divisions within the media community have prevented any sustainable initiative from
emerging. 102 There is also discussion about a statutory press council, although there are some concerns
regarding the possibility of official interference or control because, as one CSO leader noted, it is “the
GoM and politicians who have politicized the media, resulting in the poor quality of the media.”
A major obstacle to establishment of such a council is the serious lack of solidarity that permeates the
media sector, which also hinders the ability of journalists and media owners to stand up for freedom of
the press and their rights as media workers. In a 2004 Globe International survey, 50 percent of journalists
indicated that the sector needs a strong organization to project its rights and interests. A lack of such an
organization was cited as the most common cause of self-censorship.
102 In the 2004 Globe International survey, 47.5 percent of journalists called for a system of self-regulation to improve ethical
reporting. In that same year, the Open Society Forum and Globe International worked with various media groups to establish a
temporary press jury to hear complaints about coverage of the 2004 parliamentary elections for the three months leading up to the
elections.
97