Glitz and glamour can’t hide Eurovision’s politics

This weekend, Europe will once again be swept away by a sparkly hurricane of techno beats and pompous ballads, kitschy and/or traditional costumes, wind machines, pyrotechnics, heavily accented English, awkward host banter and nul points. Yes, Eurovision is upon us, Milana Knezevic writes.

While first and foremost a showbiz spectacle, if you look beneath the layer of sequins you’ll soon discover the political tinge to the continent’s premier singing competition. From the start in 1956, it was designed as fun way of testing out new broadcasting technology. Those partial to the occasional conspiracy theory would have you believe this was also a convenient cover for pan-European satellite testing during the Cold War, which is why NATO members Turkey and Israel were invited to the party.

With the lifting of the Iron Curtain and the inclusion of the Eastern Bloc in 1990, much was said about the healing, unifying power of the contest. Since then, even more has been said about the tendency of the late arrivals to share their points amongst themselves. The UK, for instance, have been vocal about political, neighbourhood voting being the cause of their recent Eurovision failings, rather than, say, sending entries like this. And while Eurovision, somewhat censoriously, prohibits political songs that has not stopped artists from trying to get their meaningful messages across.

The most famous recent example is perhaps Georgia’s pun-tastic 2009 offering “We Don’t Want To Put In’‘, to be performed at final in — you guessed it — Moscow. They were told to change the song or drop out, and ultimately chose the latter. Krista Siegfrids, Finland’s entrant this year, has warned she might be planting a kiss on one of her female dancers in protest at her country’s failure to adopt equal marriage legislation.

Most significantly, Eurovision gives its entrants prime time access to some 800 million viewers around the world – an unparalleled platform on which to promote their nation should they choose to. Many have jumped at the opportunity, chief among them the land of fire; Azerbaijan. As 2012 hosts, the Aliyev regime poured millions of their significant oil wealth into reforming their international reputation as a repressive hereditary dictatorship. The only problem with this otherwise foolproof plan was that they forcefully evicted  people to make room for an ambitious Eurovision-inspired urban renewal project in Baku, attacked journalists covering and speaking up about it, and generally conducted their notoriously human rights abusing business as usual. Not much has changed since the party left town a year ago — only this week, the regime announced they have extended libel laws to online speech ahead of October’s presidential election.

Before that, 2009 hosts Russia attempted to dazzle Europe and the world, with a spectacular stage show in the 25,000 capacity Indoor Olympic Arena in Moscow. However, LGBT activists seized the opportunity to shine the spotlight on the country’s poor record on gay rights, attempting to stage a Slavic-wide Pride parade on the day of the final. In a clear violation of the right to freedom of expression and assembly, the parade was banned. Many of the protesters who showed up anyway, were attacked and arrested. LGBT rights remain poor in Russia, with a 100-year ban on pride parades in Moscow announced only last year. The charm offensive of last year’s singing, dancing, baking grandma entry has this year been followed by the John-and-Yoko-esque ‘What If?‘, which among other gems, contains the lyrics “Together we can make a better place/ On this little island out in space”. Meanwhile, in Russia, internationally funded NGOs have to register as ‘foreign agents’, or risk fines and prison time.

You don’t have to host to be able to host to take full advantage of the promotional platform Eurovision. Like Belarus, you can condense your message to fit the 3-minute performance slot. In 2011, the country known as Europe’s last dictatorship sent Anastasiya Vinnikova to perform the subtly named “I Love Belarus“. Somehow, it didn’t progress to the final. Maybe the rest of Europe had some trouble reconciling the country described in the song, with its “fields full of gold” and “free, friendly and young people”, with the country where you’re put in prison for pointing out that your repressive dictator is, well, a dictator.

Also in the running this year is Hungary, the country with some of the most draconian press regulation on the continent. There’s Ukraine, where the former prime minister is serving a seven-year jail sentence for what is widely recognised as politically motivated charges. In Italy, the final will be broadcast on public broadcaster RAI, one half of the TV duopoly that poses a big threat to the country’s media plurality. In Greece, financial woes have also had a pretty detrimental effect on freedom of expression. Bulgaria’s web of cosy relationships between authorities and media leaves the country without an accurate picture of itself.

Yes, Eurovision is first and foremost one of the biggest parties in the world. However, as you’re watching the spectacle unfold on Saturday, spare a thought for the Europeans who are not as free to express themselves as their fellow countrymen on stage in Malmo.

Bulgaria’s government mirrored in the media

An election is always a good litmus test for a country’s media freedom — particularly in Bulgaria. It consistently ranks last amongst European Union members for media freedom, and the US Department of State called its “gravely damaged media pluralism” one of its most pressing human rights problems, Georgi Kantchev reports.

In the run-up to the 12 May parliamentary election, former ruling party GERB received the most mentions in Bulgaria’s media, ahead of the Bulgarian Socialist Party (BSP), and the Turkish minority movement DPS — mirroring the election results.

Media coverage, however, does not accurately capture the gap between parties. GERB was mentioned 3,642 times in election coverage — 80 per cent more than BSP. In the polls, the difference between the two parties was less than four per cent.

Bulgaria’s media grants over-exposure to those in power, and the industry seems to quickly adapt to a new political situation. While the New Bulgarian Media Group (NBMG) editorial stance was against the GERB in the 2009 elections, it changed its tune almost overnight after the party’s victory.

Given the close ties between the media and political parties in the country, distorted election coverage is not very surprising. For instance, a high-ranking DPS member owns the NBMG, which owns the Telegraph, the highest circulated newspaper in the country.

The tangles between politics and the Bulgarian media has drawn the attention of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). In a report released ahead of the election, the body expressed concerns over the “growing concentration of media ownership in the hands of a restricted circle of business people.” According to the OSCE, this “raised concerns about the independence of media from undue economic and political pressure.”

“Most media find themselves in a passive position and practically shun their most important function — to build an informed public opinion, and through that to support the political choice of the people”, says Orlin Spassov, professor of journalism at the University of Sofia. “The result of this campaign was a deficit of informed choice.”

Bulgaria has measures put in place to distinguish editorial content from political advertisements for broadcast media, but not for the press. The OSCE pointed out that “paid media coverage is often not labelled as such, thus potentially misleading the audience about the nature of the reporting.”

Bulgaria’s murky relationship with the press also creates trouble for journalists, who sometimes feel pressure for their reporting. In April Boris Mitov, a journalist for news site Mediapool.bg was summoned for questioning by prosecutors after writing an article accusing a Sofia deputy city prosecutor of illegal wiretapping. The prosecutors placed pressure on Mitov to reveal his sources, and after he refused to do so, they reportedly told him that he could face up to five years in prison for disclosing state secrets.

More troubling is the culture of self-censorship arising from pressure placed on journalists from business groups. Most common is economic pressure — which trickles down from media outlet owners to editors and reporters. The NBMG group, for instance, is largely financed by the Corporate Commercial Bank (CCB). The CCB has also held a large percentage of state-owned enterprises in the transport, energy, and defence sector — which means that NBMG is practically financed with public funds. This helps explain why the group is often cosying up to those in power.

While infrequent, sometimes journalists face direct threats from businesses. After writing a series of articles critical of a local business group last year, investigative journalist Spas Spassov received Sun Tzu’s book The Art of War in the post. Included was a note quoting a line from the book: “You should avoid those you can’t either defeat or befriend.”

The most recent election results, however, have left an unclear picture of who is in power: since no party has gain

ed a majority in Parliament. Coalition building was undermined by a deeply polarising election — which means that the media will have a difficult time knowing who to pledge allegiance to.

Azerbaijan: New legislative amendments further erode rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly

The International Partnership Group for Azerbaijan (IPGA) — Index on Censorship is a signatory — strongly condemns a series of repressive legislative amendments that Azerbaijan’s National Assembly (Milli Majlis) adopted on 14 May 2013. The amendments were submitted by the prosecutor-general’s office to a parliamentary commission two weeks before and are being enacted in the run-up to October’s Presidential election.

The existing draconian penalties for criminal defamation and insult have been extended to online content, including Azerbaijan’s vibrant social networks, and public demonstrations. The permitted length of “administrative” detention – detention without referring to a court – is now much greater for many offences.

Read more »

Russian bird lovers targeted as ‘foreign agents’

An organisation behind a nature reserve dedicated to the protection of Russia’s cranes has been ordered to register as “a foreign agent” under the country’s non-governmental organisation law. The case highlights how arbitrary implementation is chilling free expression in the country, Andrei Aliaksandrau reports.

Read more »

Azerbaijan extends libel law to web speech

Index on Censorship and partner organizations have strongly condemned moves by Azerbaijan’s government on Tuesday to criminalise online slander and abuse in the run-up to the country’s October Presidential election.

The government claims the move will give it the ability to more effectively oversee the web, the AFP reported. The opposition argues the law will have a chilling effect on free expression and could be used to stifle dissent.

Index on Censorship has previously criticised attempts by governments to control the online activities of their citizens. In the latest development, Index has joined a coalition to strongly condemn a series of repressive legislative amendments that Azerbaijan’s National Assembly adopted Tuesday.

The existing penalties for criminal defamation and insult in the media have been extended to online content, including Azerbaijan’s social networks. The length of “administrative” detention – 15 days without referring to a court has increased to 90 days.

---

More Azerbaijan >>>
• Azerbaijan’s Facebook fight
• In Depth: The Truth About Azerbaijan (19 Sep, 2012)
• Complete Coverage

World Press Freedom Day: Is the European Union faltering on media freedom?

The European Union on World Press Freedom Day should be celebrating continuing press freedom across its member states and championing press freedom abroad. But instead today there is less to celebrate and more cause for deep concern that the EU is failing to protect this core element of its democracies, Index on Censorship CEO Kirsty Hughes writes.

Read more »

Corruption, fear and silence: the state of Greek media today

This article was originally published on opendemocracy.net

Read more »

Azerbaijan’s Facebook fight

In the run up to the presidential elections in October 2013, there have been increased attacks on free expression in Azerbaijan. And social media has become a new target for the country’s authorities, says Idrak Abbasov

Read more »