The successor nations to the former Yugoslavia are among the most difficult places for journalists to work in Europe, a fact borne out by the latest quarterly report from Index on Censorship’s Mapping Media Freedom project. In the case of Macedonia there have been 35 verified incidents since the project began in May 2014.
Journalists have been subjected to verbal threats, online trolling, intimidation and physical assaults against their person and property. But another issue afflicting Macedonia’s 200 media outlets is more insidious: government advertising budgets of €30-40 million that warp the market and act as a constraint on media outlets and journalists alike.
“The outlets compete in a small, distorted market, covering around 2 million citizens, where they cannot survive financially unless they align their interests with the governing parties and politically-connected large businesses,” according to November 2014 report from the Association of Journalists of Macedonia (ZNM) report.
Since 2009, when the European Commission Progress Report first criticised the use of government advertising as a tool “to undermine editorial independence”, media freedom in Macedonia has become more openly discussed.
According to a report published by the government, between 2012 and the end of the first quarter of 2014, ruling parties spent about €18 million on 27 government media campaigns. It spent €6.6 million in 2012, €7.2 million in 2013 and almost €4 million in the first six months of 2014. To date, the report was the only time that the government released information about public money spent on promotional or awareness-raising advertisements.
Most government-funded advertisements are aimed at informing citizens about the benefits of reforms, encouraging innovation and entrepreneurialism and promoting family values. In a statement on state ads, ZNM said: “Government campaigns have nothing to do with the public interest and are pure political propaganda of the government paid by public funds.”
“The government claims that campaigns are implemented in order to inform citizens about the importance and significance of specific policies and measures,” ZNM wrote. In effect, the organisation said, Macedonia’s government uses taxpayer money to tell citizens that its efforts have been successful, whether or not the reforms have actually succeeded.
After criticism from Brussels, the Macedonian government temporarily halted state-funded campaigns, and, as Balkan Insight reported, this will last “until the authorities agree on tighter rules for spending public funds on ads”. Unpaid public service announcements were not affected by the order.
The 2014 annual report examining the broadcast market from the Macedonian Agency for Audio and Audiovisual Media Services did not include a breakdown on government advertising spending, a departure from previous years. The 2012 report showed that the government had been the largest single source of ad budgets, outpacing telecommunication firms, Proctor & Gamble and Coca Cola. The government slipped to become the second largest advertiser, according to the .
A study conducted by ZNM examined the €18 million spent on advertising by the government since 2012. According to the report, the largest slice of the advertising buys were directed to pro-government media outlets “creating even more robust political-clientelistic and corrupt links between the government and the media”.
Another organisation, Media Integrity Matters, found that the government’s role in the advertising marketplace was deleterious. “These phenomena have prevented the media from performing their basic democratic role – to serve the public interest and citizens” the organisation wrote in its report, which recommended that media finances be transparent and monitored by independent bodies.
Mapping Media Freedom
Click on the bubbles to view reports or double-click to zoom in on specific regions. The full site can be accessed at https://mappingmediafreedom.org/
JMU Journalism graduate Josie Timms has been presented with the first Tim Hetherington Fellowship, sponsored by the LJMU and Index on Censorship, at the Frontline Club in London. Read in full JMU Journalism.
Xiaolu Guo is a fiction writer, filmmaker and political activist. Robert McCrum is an associate editor of The Observer. Stephen Grey is an investigative journalist and author. Ismail Einashe is a journalist and researcher. (Photo: Sean Gallagher / Index on Censorship)
Are the challenges of censorship, subterfuge and propaganda greater or lesser than they were in previous decades? Who are modern technological advances really empowering? It was a full house last night at the Frontline Club for the launch of Spies, Secrets and Lies — Index on Censorship’s Autumn 2015 issue — and a lively debate on censorship then and now.
The panel — chaired by Index on Censorship magazine editor Rachael Jolley — included award-winning investigative journalist and author Stephen Grey; fiction writer, filmmaker and political activist Xiaolu Guo; associate editor of The Observer Robert McCrum; and freelance journalist, researcher and an associate editor at foreign affairs magazine Warscapes, Ismail Einashe.
In 2010, when Grey was trying to work out how he and Julian Assange could get the Iraq war logs into Britain without being blocked along the way, he invited Assange to a panel at City University London moderated by former Index on Censorship chair Jonathan Dimbleby. “We thought the British government would never stop anyone coming to a censorship debate in London,” says Grey. And it worked.
.@StephenGrey introducing our event. Talking about trying to get Julian Assange into country for an index event years ago #indexfrontline
“The river of information that came out of Wikileaks -- and subsequently Snowden, in a more restricted way -- is just one facet of this explosion of free knowledge and rapid messaging that defines our world today, to which our politics and security services have yet to adapt,” says Grey.
But how does this situation differ from the flow of information during the Cold War?
Most obviously, technological advances have changed the way we operate. Harking back to his early days at Index on Censorship in the 1970s, McCrum told of how his first trip to Czechoslovakia was with a carrier bag of bananas in which he smuggled editions of the magazine (Full story in the latest magazine, paywall). Today, the ease of moving documents has made tackling censorship less labourious.
Robert McCrum on how when the magazine was founded, there was a clear enemy in Cold War. there were clearer lines #indexfrontline
Index was founded to defend literary freedom during the Cold War. “Now we’re trying to defend freedom of speech and freedom of thought across the globe,” says McCrum.
Take China, where state surveillance is a daily occurrence. “Since the internet started in China 20 years ago, it created great freedom,” says Guo. “But it also promoted overwhelming state control and at the moment, there's at least 2 million internet police.” While no government has a monopoly on cyber surveillance, China’s efforts are certainly more advanced, she explains.
Discussing whether there is more or less censorship today, Einashe says that in Africa we can clearly see there is more. “Freedom House says that the democratic gains you had in the continent in the early 2000s have now reversed, so you have a situation where things are becoming less democratic and states are becoming less free.”
But our focus shouldn’t just be on far away places, he explains. Even in the West we see censorship on a daily basis, including here in the UK. In recent weeks, we've seen the banning of Homegrown, a play about the radicalisation of young people and the seductive power of Isis. We also saw the secular activist Maryam Namazie banned from speaking at Warwick University's student union, since resolved, for fear she would incite hatred against Muslims.
So has censorship really changed? Flicking through a copy of the latest Index magazine, it's very difficult to tell, says Grey.
On one hand, we have more openness and transparency than during the Cold War. “We also have an age of mass surveillance, where communication is there to be mined and monitored,” he says.
Professor Chris Frost, Tim Hetherington Fellowship winner Josie Timms and Judith Hetherington. (Photo: Sean Gallagher / Index on Censorship)
Tim Hetherington was a British photojournalist, most famous for his award-winning documentary Restrepo about the war in Afghanistan. He was killed in 2011 by shrapnel from artillery fired by Libyan forces while covering the Libyan civil war.
“Joining the Council of Europe platform is part of our continued efforts to increase visibility of media freedom violations in the region. We look forward to working with the Council and engage in a constructive dialogue with governments to address the too many threats journalists face for simply doing their job,” Melody Patry, senior advocacy officer Index on Censorship, said.
Chief Executive of Index on Censorship Jodie Ginsberg, and European Union correspondent of the Committee to Protect Journalists Jean-Paul Marthoz signed the agreement on behalf of their organisations during a meeting with Council of Europe Secretary General Thorbjørn Jagland.
Secretary General Jagland said: “Visibility for threats against journalists is crucial and cannot be underestimated. The fact that we have this platform means that we can also take concrete threats against journalists to governments in question and discuss with them to take joint actions. We already have good examples of how this works in a positive way”.
Since its launch in April 2015, the platform has recorded 84 alerts concerning 21 states. Twenty-five alerts concern physical attacks on journalists, 21 alerts the detention and imprisonment of journalists, 8 impunity of attacks, 8 harassment or intimidation, and other 22 acts that may have a chilling effect on media freedom. Eleven alerts concerned cases in which journalists were killed, eight of them in the Charlie Hebdo attack.
The platform was launched with the participation of five partner organisations with which the Council of Europe signed a Memorandum of understanding: Article 19, the Association of European Journalists, the European Federation of Journalists, the International Federation of Journalists and Reporters Without Borders.
The platform allows these partners to issue alerts concerning media freedom threats and to bring them to the attention of the Council of Europe institutions. Once the alerts are published, the Council of Europe sends them to the authorities of the country concerned. The Council of Europe institutions may react publicly or start a dialogue on the issue with the authorities. Subsequently, responses of the member states and follow-up action taken by the competent bodies are also posted on the platform. The governments of the states concerned by the 84 alerts received have so far replied to 26 cases.
Le Comité pour la protection des journalistes et Index on Censorship se joignent à la Plateforme du Conseil de l’Europe pour la protection des journalistes
Strasbourg, 13.10.2015 – Le Comité pour la protection des journalistes et Index on Censorship se joignent aujourd’hui aux organisations partenaires de la Plateforme pour renforcer la protection du journalisme et la sécurité des journalistes, ce qui leur permettra d’alerter le Conseil de l’Europe sur les cas de violation de la liberté des médias en Europe.
“Rejoindre la plateforme du Conseil de l’Europe fait partie de nos efforts continus pour accroître la visibilité des violations de la liberté des médias dans la région. Nous avons hâte de travailler avec le Conseil et d’engager un dialogue constructif avec les gouvernements pour confronter les menaces trop nombreuses qui pèsent sur les journalistes,” dit Melody Patry, chargé de plaidoyer principal Index on Censorship.
Jodie Ginsberg, directrice d’Index on Censorship, et Jean-Paul Marthoz, correspondant pour l’Union européenne du Comité pour la protection des journalistes, ont signé l’accord de partenariat au nom de leur organisation lors d’une réunion avec Thorbjørn Jagland, Secrétaire Général du Conseil de l’Europe.
M. Jagland déclaré : « faire connaître les menaces qui pèsent sur les journalistes revêt une importance cruciale, c’est un levier qu’on ne saurait sous-estimer. En outre, grâce à cette plate-forme, nous pouvons approcher les gouvernements concernés au sujet des menaces concrètes qui pèsent sur les journalistes, en vue de prendre des mesures conjointes. Nous avons d’ores et déjà obtenu des résultats positifs avec cette méthode. »
Depuis son lancement en avril 2015, la plate-forme a enregistré 84 alertes concernant 21 Etats. Vingt-cinq alertes portent sur des agressions physiques contre des journalistes, 21 sur la détention et l’emprisonnement de journalistes, 8 sur l’impunité des agressions, 8 sur le harcèlement ou l’intimidation, et 22 sur des actes pouvant avoir un effet dissuasif sur la liberté des médias. Onze alertes concernent des cas dans lesquels des journalistes ont été tués ; parmi ceux-ci figurent notamment huit victimes de l’attentat contre Charlie Hebdo.
La plate-forme a été lancée avec la participation de cinq organisations partenaires, qui ont signé un mémorandum d’accord avec le Conseil de l’Europe : Article 19, l’Association des journalistes européens, la Fédération européenne des journalistes, la Fédération internationale des journalistes et Reporters sans frontières.
La plate-forme permet à ces organisations de publier des alertes concernant des menaces qui pèsent sur la liberté des médias, et de les porter à l’attention des institutions du Conseil de l’Europe. Lorsqu’une alerte est publiée, le Conseil de l’Europe la transmet aux autorités du pays concerné. Les institutions du Conseil de l’Europe peuvent réagir publiquement aux alertes ou entamer un dialogue à ce sujet avec les autorités. Par la suite, les réponses des Etats membres et les suites données par les organes compétents sont également publiées sur la plate-forme. A ce jour, 84 alertes ont été reçues, qui ont donné lieu à 26 réponses de la part des gouvernements concernés.
