Change takes time, a fact that does not always agree with the human tendency to be impatient.

At the beginning of the year, we were enthusiastic about the progressive events taking place in Arab regions. Dictators were removed and hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets to voice their struggle for democracy and freedom. And as the season of change continues, here it’s hardly a whimper.

Karim El-Gawhary, a freelance Middle East correspondent for several German-speaking newspapers and head of the Middle East bureau for the Austrian public broadcaster ORF in Cairo, shared some interesting insights on the vicissitude, or lack thereof. In 2010 El-Gawhary saw a storm brewing due to a flurry of activity on the Internet. “This could not be conveyed to Germany, until the subject was on the international media agenda.” In his opinion, certain catchphrases are needed to draw the interest of international media outlets: anything with “Muslim,” “Islam” or “Al-Qaeda.”

Or, perhaps, “bikinis.” Throughout German media outlets, conjectures were made that in the case of a Muslim Brotherhood victory in the general election on November 28, bikinis would be banned from the shores of the Red Sea. The Egyptian Minister of Tourism claimed that the media was blowing the issue out of proportion and that travelers could confidently pack their bikinis and book their vacations.

My interest, however, does not lie in the transition of beachwear, but in the transition of the media. Let’s stay in Egypt. Reporters Without Borders (RWB) has continuously failed to report harassment by the reigning military council, which includes the raids of three TV stations, the suspension of licenses for satellite broadcasters and the seizure of mobile broadcasting equipment belonging to the Egyptian Al Jazeera branch. Journalists criticizing the new leaders were summoned, broadcasts were interrupted, and blogger Alaa Abd El Fatah was arrested due to his account of protestors clashing with authorities on October 9, when 24 people were killed.

Television is a crucial medium in a country where one in four cannot read. Especially now in the run-up to the elections, it is of paramount importance for democracy activists to reach as many people as possible, beyond the well-informed Twitter and Facebook users. Some have established non-profit broadcasts, but time is running out. In a time when state broadcasts should be a haven for balanced reporting, instead Egyptian TV journalists describe a desolate state, as Austin Mackell reports (The Guardian, 5.11.2011). Only the messenger has changed, the military has now become the Ministry of Information. Many journalists pursue low-quality journalism, conduct propaganda or conceal information – at least, until an official statement is issued. Why? Many acquired their jobs through personal relationships and feel indebted; professionalism is low. In other words: press freedom is appreciated, but journalists do not (yet) know how to handle this freedom.

Not only is the vessel important, also the content. Therefore, the acclaim bestowed upon  Facebook and Twitter is shortsighted. Free access to information does not necessarily lead to a free society. Regime supporters have the same access as opponents; technology does not solve political and social problems. The deciding factor is a person’s knowledge and convictions.

The situation is challenging for all, for the journalists who report what counts and the editorial teams who publish it. All of us are affected due to our interest in creating a critical public that actively supports and pursues democratic change.

Published in Kölner Stadt-Anzeiger, November 9, 2011

As the EJO continues its eastward expansion, we’re pleased to announce our latest language version, EJO Romania.

In the following article, Alina Vasiliu, our Romanian Web Editor, provides an overview of the Romanian media landscape, past and present.

The year 1989 marks a distinct turning point in Romanian mass media. It signifies the full stop in all areas of Romanian society, a year when communist media institutions disappeared, soon to be replaced by democratic institutions. Nearly all of Romania’s media outlets changed their names to replace demagogic communist labels, deciding instead to incorporate the word “free” in the new titles, for example: Free Youth (national newspaper), Free Romanian Television  (public television) Free Life (newspaper in Galati), and Free Mind (newspaper in Constanta). The newspaper The Spark became The Truth. The only publication that didn’t require a name change was România Liberă (“Free Romania”), although its epithet certainly acquired a different meaning in December of 1989.

Journalism Professionals

Unfortunately, while the names of the media institutions changed, in most cases the staff remained the same. Pre-revolutionary journalists – obliged to write as commanded under the terror of censorship – became post-revolutionary journalists, behaving aggressively enough to equal the previously manifested docility. During this short period of transition to democracy, journalists took great liberties in violating rules, writing anything about anyone without sanction. Heads of the publications changed, but those who coordinated and censored journalists before the revolution didn’t disappear, rather they remained dormant only to reappear a few years later at the helm of many media outlets. Those who took leading positions in 1989 were hardly “model” journalists, as attitudes and reflexes induced by too many years of survival under communism hadn’t suddenly vanished.

Hence, the most promising option for the future of Romanian journalism may be to completely replace the generation educated in the “golden age,” to turn instead to young journalists ready to apply rules acquired in universities rather than habits borrowed from older colleagues.

Deontology

An important sociological study (“Media Self-Regulation in Romania” conducted in 2009 by IMAS, the Center for Independent Journalism and Active Watch) revealed many deviations from generally accepted professional standards. Thirty-one percent of journalists admitted to being forced to pursue advertising contracts themselves as though they were commercial agents. Many also claim it is difficult to rectify an error in the media. Forty-three percent agree it is difficult to verify information from several independent sources, and 33 percent say it’s hard to present the views of all parties involved in a particular issue. Most journalists recognize that professional standards are not met in the press, and 60 percent of journalists say this is because of political pressure. Other potential causes listed are the insufficient training of journalists, the influence of employers, commercial pressures, and the opacity of state institutions. Half of the journalists are not aware of any “code of ethics,” and 17 percent say that certain topics are taboo in their newsrooms.

Professional issues in the press culminated with several scandals, prompted first by the 2009 release of transcripts documenting a recording wherein two famous journalists, Sorin Roşca Stănescu and Bogdan Chirieac, attempted to blackmail a public figure.

The following year saw the release of controversial transcripts of Sorin Ovidiu Vântu’s – owner of Realitatea TV, one of the first Romanian television stations – conversations with journalists and politicians. Beyond the contextual political significance of the transcripts, they revealed the subordination and even servility which can exist between journalists and media owners.

At a 2011 conference in Bucharest held by the Romanian Federation of Journalists, MediaSind, President and CEO of TVR Alexandru Lăzescu explains, “In addition to the clear economic weakness of the media, the ethical standards have also completely collapsed, while the overthrow of values receives an air of normality. To what extent are the media media and is the journalist a journalist and not a weapon? If someone is called a journalist it does not mean that journalism is what he does. For nearly 10 years there has been a phenomenon that is hollow inside and eats away at media credibility. The press blackmails in Romania – though less in Bucharest – are practiced with great skill in this country. There are clear patterns applied. I know people who are exasperated by what is happening. It has grown to a sophisticated, orchestrated attack.”

It works like this: Journalists investigate and uncover negative facts concerning a particular public figure. They then offer never to disclose the information to the public in exchange for money or advertising for their publications. There are also situations when the blackmailed individuals occupying important positions in state organizations are forced to provide confidential information.

Lăzescu – who maintained his position as a professor of journalism despite being appointed to head Romania’s public television – confesses to encountering difficulties in communicating with his students, as the students realize that what is taught in university contradicts the reality of journalistic practice.

Press Freedom

Even in this context, all non-governmental organizations and press associations cling to the idea that journalists do not need to be regulated by law, as this would create preconditions for limiting the freedom of expression. Even if a bill were to be developed and debated by journalists, there remains the belief that once inside the Romanian parliament “mixer,” politicians perceiving the press as a menace would irreparably taint the legislation.

Due to a constant lobby from the industry organizations, primarily against Articles 205 and 206 of the Penal Code which condemn insult and slander, the law has not been a threat to freedom of expression in Romania since 2006. Nevertheless, Romania is ranked only 52nd in the global Press Freedom Index (2010) conducted by Reporters without Borders, down two places from the previous year. According to this ranking, press freedom has declined for the third consecutive year (2007 – 42nd place, 2008 – 47th place,  2009 – 50th place, 2010 – 52nd place).

Journalistic freedom in Romania is limited not by laws, but by the media outlets in which they operate. The absence of a regulating law or self-regulating institutions may have led to the increase of the press blackmail phenomenon and to “the suffocation of relevant and verifiable editorial content by manipulative journalism, partisan opinion and information turned into entertainment,” as the FreeEx report “Press Freedom in Romania – 2010″ revealed.

*EJO Student Contribution

A vast amount of information appears on the Internet each day.

As a consequence, online news consumers suffer from “infobesity,” defined as the tendency for people to forget what they’ve seen or read online. For this reason, David McCandless invented a new “visual science of information,” as described in an article published on the website of the French magazine Les Inrocks. McCandless, who summed up his work in the book Datavision, created a graphic system which enables news consumers to memorize information using a compilation of forms and colors, eliminating the “erasing effect” of info overload.

McCandless is promoting datajournalism, the practice of extracting information from databases and presenting it in a simplified format, making it easier for news consumers to understand. As datajournalism is based on figures and graphs, it’s aimed at enabling readers to better comprehend in-depth articles, particularly when using a tablet computer.  In such a context, datajournalism represents a possible solution for the future of news organizations and for the future of online news in general.

Datajournalism first surfaced in France via OWNI, a social media site launched by Nicolas Voisin in 2009. The website functions as a digital journalism laboratory, generating content for traditional media under creative common law. The French journalism laboratory’s greatest feature is that it operates without the help of advertising revenue.

OWNI is also considered an “augmented journalism website,” as it integrates interactive and participatory tools in order to supplement information. Roughly 40 percent of its content is generated by 1,000 bloggers, who augment their work with the help of journalists. OWNI is staffed by a mere 15 people, working in various capacities.

Critics complain that as datajournalism continues to include an increasing number of editorial layers (videos, computer graphics), it will become difficult for users to understand how the information was constructed. Yet  OWNI was twice awarded best online news website in a non-English language by the Online News Association. At least one point is certain:  datajournalism will be an interesting trend to follow as traditional modes of news-consuming continue to transform.

Justine Gay is a Masters student at Sciences Po Toulouse, where she studies journalism. She recently completed a Media Journalism course with EJO’s German Editor, Tina Bettels.

Support for public broadcasting and the press is a political issue, but not only in Austria.

By comparing data from Germany, Finland, France, Italy, the United Kingdom and the United States, Rasmus Kleis Nielsen and Geert Linnebank from the Reuters Institute of Oxford University have concluded that instruments of media policy have essentially stayed the same since the `80s. In an analysis of countries that subsidize media projects, Nielsen and Linnebank found that most of the money distributed by governments is allocated to the media dinosaurs: broadcasting and print newspapers.

Both print and broadcast news have a long history of residing on the “government drip” in all countries included in the study, either by receiving lush fees, tax breaks, lower postal rates, or even direct state subsidies. Even in the U.S., where media is not traditionally funded by the government, researchers found that each year more than $1 billion in taxpayer money is spent on public television and radio programs, in addition to another $1 billion distributed to newspaper publishers.

And while powerful lobbying on behalf of the media industry ensures continued funding, small startups attempting to conduct media projects have little chance to receive such subsidies.

The most bizarre law discovered in Nielsen and Linnebank’s analysis comes from Italy, where journalism bureaus run by at least two members of parliament can receive funding as long as they intend to publish a print edition of a newspaper.  However one caveat is that the newspaper must have already existed in the marketplace for three years.

Published in Die Furche, Nr. 47/2011

Source: Rasmus Kleis Nielsen/Geert Linnebank (2011): Public Support for the Media. A Six Country Overview of Direct and Indirect Subsidies Report, Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, University of Oxford

EJO’s Italian Editor Natascha Fioretti interviews Professor Elihu Katz, prominent expert in the field of communication sciences.

Professor Katz is Trustee Professor at the Annenberg School for Communication, University of Pennsylvania, Emeritus Professor of Sociology and Communication at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Scientific Director of the Guttman Institute of Applied Social Research.

 Q. Right now we are experiencing a very special and difficult time, from an economic point of view, and globally from a political point of view. What do you think are the major challenges for mass media and public communication?

Well, we are now at a time when new media have entered the scene so some combination of old media and new media are now cooking together. We see in country after country a scenario which we have seen before for example in Eastern Europe in 1989 with the fall of communism. We began to see this pattern of people coming out of their homes to mount major protests and fighting over control of the television station. And now it is more complicated. 

I think the major effect of the media of mass communication, TV and newspaper was to move politics inside the home and thus to neutralize politics. Because you live with your furniture, with your wife and it is not a very political situation and people don’t tend to leave the TV set to get up, go outside to protest. But now with the new combination of new and old media I think people are being pushed outside by these new media. So that it is more like commuting between the home and the streets, the homes and the coffee shops where politics used to be.

Actually, there is a famous paper about the difference between Americans and Italians by two guys called Hallin and Paolo Mancini. They say Americans watch the news, even people who are addicted to the news drink a beer and go to sleep. They don’t do anything. Whereas Italian get angry, put on their coats, go to the piazza and from the piazza they go to the trade union headquarters or to the political party headquarters and say we have to do something. That’s sort of a story and maybe it is true.

But what I’m saying is that this combination of old media and new media now seems to be pushing people outside. So in the Middle East the pattern seems to be in Tunis where it started. Somebody puts himself on fire and then people get angry, then it’s on television, it’s on Al-Jazeera and then people begin to realize that they are not the only ones who are fed up with the regime. We have a concept in sociology that we call the “pluralistic ignorance” which means that I think I’m the only one and I can’t talk about it. It’s like ‘The Emporer’s New Clothes.’  I know that the Emperor is naked but I can’t say it, I know I’m homosexual but I think I’m the only one. And then something happens like the Kinsey report, and it makes people aware that there are lots of other people out there that think what they do, and then they feel empowered and try to do something. Where this ‘something’ will go is totally unclear. I mean, where it will go? Will there be this connection between the street and the political party and the parliament and the government or will they throw out the government and reintroduce some other regime which is equally no good and oppressive – this is a question. 

Q: Do you think that this combination of old and new media that we are experiencing right now is a positive change?

Well I think it looks positive, at the beginning. But it is basically not so civilized. It returns to the pre-situation…of crowds, and crowds are not anybody’s ideal of democracy, certainly not violent crowds. So while we have some sympathies that finally somebody is rebelling, this is not the society I want to live in, not in the beginning, not in the middle and maybe not in the end.

Q: So this concept that the Web is a tool of democratization is exaggerated?

Probably it is exaggerated. We don’t know, but probably. It depends who controls it. What will happen afterward even if they can express their demands as they are doing now with the Occupy Wall Street movement which is pretty civilized, and it’s also that these crowds, these demonstrations are contagious. We see how it moved from Tunis to Egypt to Syria to Bahrain to Wall Street  or to Tel Aviv as well, and in each case people protesting are suspicious once the government has been convinced that it is serious, which takes some time because the government tends to dismiss it. And they think that they control the media, the weather will change and it will be over, But once the government tries to treat it seriously then the people who are protesting are very suspicious of the appointment of the committee to look into their demands. So it is not clear.

Q: Is it a must today for politicians to communicate through Internet and social media? Are they important tools for involving people and persuading them or does TV still play the major role?

I don’t think it is a good way in social media to get a serious message across, to get a slogan across. But Miss Merkel or Mr. Sarkozy are not going to succeed on social media.

Q: Going back to traditional political communication, isn’t there the risk somehow that when communication is so good, so persuasive, the expectations grow so much that sometimes we have the feeling that communication goes beyond the real content and substance or what a politician is really able to do and to be. 

That’s always been true. A message is more sophisticated. Whether the message is as persuasive as you suggest is another question. I’m not a big believer in advertising. But some of my colleagues are. The claim is always beyond the ability of these politicians to deliver. Look at Obama, now he’s in big trouble even with his own supporters because he has not succeeded in anything except maybe foreign relations. But he has not succeeded economically, in the health plan, he has bad luck, let’s say…

Q: From the point of view of the people, of the public opinion, what do you think in this respect? We are increasingly bombarded with news and communication – will they learn to handle all this information, are they happy with this situation?

I don’t know if they are happy. Personally I think that television is dead or dying in the sense of the shared experience. It used to be the family sat down together and watched TV and they knew that their neighbors were doing the same and all of the world was doing the same. Media events were the main ceremonial events of the society, broadcast live, and everybody was watching. Now that it’s almost over, what we have are disruptive events like terror or disaster, like tsunami and war. So there are the things that bring people together. TV has become so decentralized that not everybody is watching the same thing at the same time. And I’m sure people are more cynical about media…

Q: Given all these big, big changes, what do you think are the major challenges right now in communication research? Are there some major topics that have not been investigated so far?

Yes, I think so. I think that the main emphasis will be on social networks. Through the media… it’s the generic problem I call diffusion, it is how things spread and how things spread in these messages, like the Obama social movements and so on,  but also what’s called data mining. Which is if I find that people are sending messages that include the word ‘flu’ in, let’s say, South Africa. So we see that the social media have the word flu in higher proportion than usual and if we know that South Africans are connected with Australians we can predict that the flu will next come to Australia. So that all business of social networks I think is the future and it might or might not contribute to democratization.

The largest supplier of automotive technology, the Robert Bosch Group, recently celebrated its 125th anniversary.

Rather than simply publishing a history of the company, the corporate communications department opted for a spectacular display of public relations, creating a “present day” Bosch book, featuring a kaleidoscopic 125 photographs shot at 125 different locations throughout the world at the same exact instant.

Bosch printed 450,000 copies of the photo book in 19 languages, delivered to 62 countries and 653 Bosch locations. Lucky Bosch employees – 285,000 of them – received the book as a gift and an additional 165,000 copies were distributed among customers and business partners.

Bosch’s Head of Corporate Communications, Uta-Micaela Dürig, and her project manager Anke Dewitz-Grube provide details about the planning and implementation in the special interest journal Kommunikationsmanager, writing, “Preparatory work took more than two years. Approximately 400 suggestions of topics from 40 countries and 800 portfolios of international photo journalists were checked. At the end, more than 1,000 people were involved.” These figures alone serve as an exceptional example of what globalization means and how worldwide corporate communications functions today. Bosch’s book project is, without doubt, a masterpiece of logistics and publicity. The feat of ensuring that 125 photographers shoot photos at precisely the same moment commands great respect in itself, as anyone who’s tried coordinating more than 10 individuals from different cultures and languages already knows.

*For the sake of transparency, it must be noted that as a young man, Stephan Russ-Mohl spent five years working for the Robert Bosch Foundation in Stuttgart. Ms. Dürig, Senior Vice President and Director of Corporate Communications at Bosch, is his former student from the FU Berlin.

Published in Die Furche, Nr. 43/2011

New research raises the question of whether an integrated culture of journalism exists in Poland.

Election season is a challenging time for reporters, a time when the duality between objective reporting patterns conflicts with the desire for politicians to supplant favorable content about their own election campaigns into mainstream media.

This type of confrontation, seen mainly by the masses in the form of public debates, has become the domain of television journalists, collectively described by Walery Pisarek as “the summit of journalism’s professional hierarchy.”

In a recent study, University of Wroclaw researcher Piotr Piskozub conducted a content analysis (quantitative and qualitative) of two television programs, focusing on content broadcast during the 2010 Polish presidential campaign. The two programs, Tomasz Lis na zywo hosted by Tomasz Lis, and Warto rozmawiac hosted by Jan Pospieszalski were chosen due to their larger-than-average viewership, which places them among the most popular programs of their kind in Poland. 

Both hosts are journalists recognizable by most citizens (Wieslaw Godzic defines Lis as a “forced celebrity,” noting the interest of tabloids who write about his personal life). Lis and Pospieszalski participate in mainstream press and radio projects, however with the caveat that they will only engage in media projects which contain a distinct program policy. Considering this perspective, Lis and Pospieszalski can be defined as representative figures for specific sections of domestic journalism. The purpose for conducting the content analysis was to confirm or falsify the hypothesis that a relatively integrated journalism culture exists in Poland. The additional hypothesis was based on the variances between several journalism subcultures, which differ not only in their views on social and political issues, but also in their description of the appropriate standards of labor and ethics in journalism.

Sixteen total broadcasts were included in the content analysis, seven episodes of Tomasz Lis na zywo and nine episodes of Warto rozmawiac. Data was gathered by coding the dominant features of each journalist’s statements (suggestions, emotionality, value judgments, mixing features of colloquial style and political vocabulary, etc.), while also coding statements made by the host (unilateral, bilateral, neither), and retention of  principles of impartiality and objectivity. Even if the discourse in the studio assumed a sequential dialogue between the host and his guests, the most important elements of content were statements that had been prewritten by a journalist and implanted into the discussion.

In Pospieszalski’s program, statements were marked for value judgments (23.3 percent) and emotionality (16.7 percent). Both hosts also conducted their broadcasts by mixing features of their own colloquial styles and political vocabulary (Pospieszalski 6.7 percent, Lis 3.8 percent), which allowed journalists to reduce the tension between politicians in the studio. While the statements made by Pospieszalski were found to be more theoretically diverse, the host of Warto rozmawiac made calculated judgments concerning his broadcast method in order to create an emotional, if not ethically abnormal atmosphere in the studio.

In analyzing the principle of sustainability, which refers to the arguments used by the hosts, it was noted that 43.3 percent of Pospieszalski’s statements were based on unilateral rhetoric, with only 6.7 percent on bilateral rhetoric. Lis referred to both sides of the political confrontation in 52.6 percent of cases. Regarding the principle of impartiality, a distinct factual advantage of the statements made by Lis existed with 80.8 percent including objective content.  In contrast, only 33.3 percent of Pospieszalski’s statements were deemed objective. Overall, Lis is more effective in presenting himself as a high-level journalist compared to Pospieszalski.

The last criterion considered in the context of professionalism in journalism was the use of emotional statements (based on the pathos, tragedy, or on open support to one option), and relating to conspiracy theories. When comparing the use of these types of messages, the content analysis revealed that 30 percent of the dialogue spoken by the host of Warto rozmawiac was formulated in an emotional way, with 20 percent of the content relating to conspiracy theories.  In comparison, the host of Tomasz Lis na zywo avoided these statements entirely, failing to make emotional or conspiracy-related comments throughout the program. When the journalists spoke in an emotional way or cited conspiracy theories, they failed to live up to a high standard of quality and professional journalism.

It is worth mentioning that both hosts have generated support within two different circles of journalism.  Lis is affiliated with “progressive” journalists who maintain liberal worldviews while Pospieszalski aligns himself with colleagues attached to traditional forms of journalism. Journalistic integrity is certainly vital, but both circles of journalism are valid and can be implemented simultaneously. This phenomenon is positive because it creates diversity in media.

However, as the results presented in the content analysis have shown, varying styles of journalism can create radically different perceptions of reality due to the use of different methods for description and explanation of events. Journalists cannot be responsible for a specific group of citizens; their role is to adhere to the expectations of society as a whole. This dissonance should increase the level of ethics in journalism rather than lead to the stratification and confrontation of standards by different groups of journalists. Therefore, the existence of several journalistic subcultures in Poland is a phenomenon with a variety of advantages and disadvantages. The crystallization of a more complete future within the journalism culture in Poland will depend both on external factors (such as the digitalization of media), and redefining the roles and tasks of journalism in a dynamic media reality.