What follows is an excerpt from a monitoring report
of the Parliamentery elections, May 8 and May 29, 1994. The report
was produced under the aegis of the European Institute for the Media in
Dusseldorf. The election took place against a background of several
years’ conflict over the structure of the state media, including bitter
disputes over the composition of its management and the power of the government
to appoint and dismiss its principal executives.
This report, financed by the Office of Democratic
Institutions and Human Rights of the Conference for Security and Cooperation
in Europe, was directed by Professor Bernd-Peter Lange, Director General
of the EIM. The monitor in Hungary was Mr. Peter Galliner,
the consultant was Dr. Ildiko Gergely, and the project management
was under the direction of Dr. Alexei Pankin and Mr. Andrew
Palmer.
For a complete copy of the report, send a fax to
Mr. Palmer at 49-211-90104-56.
1. HUNGARIAN TELEVISION
Qualitative Analysis
Hungarian Television, during the election period,
rarely met the requirements of a public service broadcasting organization.
Both channels, but particularly MTV 1, carried out a fierce and self-initiated
campaign against the Socialist Party and also, at a later stage, against
the Free Democrats’ Alliance. The news and current affairs programmes
were felt to aim at discrediting the Socialist Party. As for political
advertising, time was provided for the 15 parties running for election.
The rate charged was 10% of the normal rate.
MTV was obliged by law to give the political parties
two programmes of 5 and 10 minutes each prior to the first round, and,
prior to the second round, three minutes each to the 6 remaining parties.
As far as the editorial coverage was concerned, programmes
were organized around various subjects and included a discussion among
the Prime Ministerial candidates. As with Hungarian Radio, the number
of selected participants depended on the number of candidates per a particular
party. Each party was allocated a certain amount of time and, hence,
there was little opportunity for discussion among the speakers. Criticism
was expressed by individual parties, but this did not have any effect on
Hungarian Television.
No complaints were made about paid advertising, but
the coverage in the main daily news bulletin (Hirado) and the weekly news
programme (A Het) was considered highly unprofessional and ethically questionable
by many politicians and media professionals. The misleading selection
of news items and one-sided picture editing were pointed out as example
of MTV’s intention to discredit the Socialist Party. Far less coverage
was given to other parties, except the governing Hungarian Democratic Forum
and the right-wing nationalist parties, which were shown in a most positive
way. Examples included the coverage of Government Ministers shown
on official duties, whether these function were important or not.
For instance, the inauguration of a tiny stretch of
motor way was given several minutes’ airtime on three consecutive days
(May 2 to May 4, 1994) in the main evening news bulletin, which lasts 30
minutes and also covers international items: this was in addition
to two longer programmes (30 and 25 minutes, respectively) on the achievements
of the government in improving the roads. In order to include these
two programmes (Uton 200 fele—On the road towards 2000 [May 4, 1994] and
Bringaval az uj Palyakon—On the new tracks by bike [May 4, 1994]), previously
arranged schedules had been changed.
Prior to the second round of elections, two specific
incidents were given headline coverage. In both cases, letters had
allegedly been sent to voters by, in one case, the Chairman of the Socialist
Party and, in the other, by a leading member of the Free Democrats.
In both cases, the politicians named had not been involved in any way,
and only a few hundred voters at most had received the letters.
There were a series of documentaries of debatable quality
broadcast daily during the monitored period on the recent history on Hungary
(Magyar Felmult-Hungarian Semi History; Törvenytelen Szcializmus Unlawful
Socialism: Pincebörtönök—Dungeons, etc). These
broadcasts were highly polemic and would have given rise to complaints
at any time, because they were regarded as very one-sided. The fact
that these series were broadcast during the election period was regarded
as inappropriate to a balanced broadcasting policy. A further flaw
was the re-scheduling of programmes, so that popular prime-time entertainment
programmes were replaced by these documentaries (e.g., April 28, 1994:
MTV 1 showed Kommunista Börtönök (Communist Prisons) instead
of Szomsxedok (Neighbours)). One documentary—Pincebörtönök—focused
on the possible existence of “dungeons” underneath the Socialist Party’s
headquarters in Budapest. These programmes were even made into news
items (e.g., May 1994, Hirado).
The programme which eventually caused the Socialist
party to file a complaint with the National Electoral Board (see Chapter
7) was Panorama, a foreign affairs programme. It contained an interview
with a dissident Hungarian in Sweden who claimed that Dr. Gyula Horn,
the Chairman of the Socialist Party, at the time when he was a member of
the military forces, had seriously assaulted him during the 1956 uprising.
The programme created considerable turmoil and was condemned by almost
all the other parties. Within days, many of the newspapers published
evidence against the incriminating statement, although Hungarian Television
never publicised this side of the story. On the contrary, the programme
was repeated once again during the campaign.
Criticisms were also expressed against broadcasts which
showed banners carrying the name of the Democratic Forum as sponsors of
a rock concert, and the name of FIDESZ on the pitch of a Polish-Hungarian
football match. This, and many other incidents, were regarded as
“hidden” advertising.
Quantitative Analysis
Many parties favoured Hungarian Television as a vehicle
for advertising, as rates (10% of the normal price) were so favourable,
and also because MTV was the media outlet with the largest audience.
Some of the smaller parties even used MTV for this purpose—for instance,
the Republic Party, the Social Democrats, the Entrepreneurs’ Party, the
Green Party, and so on. Figures on the tables also show that free
access was provided equally to each party.
In terms of editorial access, the evaluation of the
data caused considerable difficulties. As already indicated, there
were a number of programmes which merely projected one particular viewpoint,
without falling into a clear programme category. These programmes
were, therefore, only covered by the team in the qualitative analysis.
As already mentioned, governmental activities undertaken
by Ministers in their official capacities, yet who at the same time were
candidates, occupied more time than that given to other parties.
When it came to the Socialist Party, negative, even abusive, coverage surpassed
positive coverage. Smaller parties, even those which were members
of the government coalition, were very much under-represented.
Education programmes, explaining the procedures, time
and place of the elections, and the announcements of results, were given
sufficient time.
II. Hungarian Radio
Hungarian Radio has been involved in the recent turmoil affecting the Hungarian media to the same extent as Hungarian Television. Like television, it has been headed by the Vice Chairman, acting as Chairman, for the last 18 months. Hungarian Radio operates in a strictly hierarchical way, the last word on everything being that of the Acting Chairman. In this tension-filled climate, 129 journalists and other staff were made redundant in March 1994. This action caused tremendous upheaval both inside and outside the country. The Acting Chairman justified these large-scale redundancies as a cost-cutting exercise. The organisational structure inherited from the centralised Communist regime had indeed been largely overstaffed, and this fact made it very difficult to argue with the Acting Chairman’s reasoning. However, it became clear that the opportunity was also used to remove journalists critical of the Government. Entire editorial teams were removed and a very popular current affairs programmme was cancelled.
Since this action took place shortly before the elections, it was regarded as a strategy to secure pro-Government radio broadcasting throughout the election campaign. A detailed analysis of the above circumstances would exceed the scope and aim of this report. They are noteworthy, however, as they had considerable impact on the public.
Qualitative Analysis
Despite the events in March 1994, which considerably
damaged not only the image of Hungarian Radio but also the morale of the
staff, an editorial policy was quickly formed concerning electoral programmes
and the coverage of the election campaign. All the electoral programmes,
as well as other political current affairs programmes, were broadcast on
Radio Kossuth, together with the main news bulletin Kronika. Radio
Petöfi broadcast regular news bulletins as well, while Radio Bartok
had brief newscasts and no other political programmmes. In short,
the coverage of the election campaign was mainly broadcast on Radio Kossuth.
Paid political advertising on radio was broadcast on
the same principles as commercial advertising. Without exception,
advertisements were marked as paid and broadcast in a separate time section.
The discount which applied to television advertising was not valid on radio:
the full price had to be paid as radio advertising rates were much less
expensive than television rates.
There was a series of electoral programmes for the six
Parliamentary parties running for election. Each party was given
the same amount of time. This, of course, disadvantaged the remaining
nine non-Parliamentary parties also running for election.
At the end of the electoral campaign, a four-hour marathon
debate among the Prime Ministerial candidates was broadcast. Each
was allocated the same amount of time. Additionally, each of the
15 Parties running for election was given 10 minutes to broadcast their
final statements, which, due to their lengths, were not regarded as very
effective.
Within the news bulletins, a special section dealt with
the elections. Individual journalists were assigned to each party.
The main foci of the whole election campaign were the conservative and
socialist forces, and this was also reflected on radio programmes.
Both sides, although in different measures, got the chance to express their
views.
However, it was clearly noticeable that quite a few
statements and actions of the anti-Socialist and the extreme right forces
were broadcast as new items, though they had no news value at all.
On the other hand, objections and replies to this type of broadcasting
were also promptly put on air (e.g., May 1, 1994: the statement of
the National Cooperative Committee of the Civic and Cultural Societies
on Radio Kossuth). The station also reported objectively within the
framework of their news bulletins on the controversies surrounding the
programmes of Hungarian Television. It was possible for the parties
to respond on radio in a way which they were not able to do on television
(e.g., April 30, 1994: the Socialist Party, on Radio Kossuth; and
May 27, 1994: the Free Democrats, also on Radio Kossuth).
In one programme (April 30, 1994: Finisben on
Radio Kossuth), the Programme Directorate criticised their own standard
of coverage. At the same time, Mr. Csucs, the Vice Chairman/Acting
Chairman, actively participated in a gathering organised by the extreme
right, and in his contribution said that he had not finished the clearing-up
of the organisation and expressed particular dissatisfaction with the operations
of Radio Kossuth. His appearance and speech were turned into a news
item and repeated several times during the day. This particular occurrence
was one of several where the head of a supposedly public service broadcasting
organisation took sides at a politically volatile time. The excessive
reporting on media affairs by every media, in any case, was a distinctive
feature of coverage during the monitoring period.
Quantitative Analysis
The figures derived from monitoring Hungarian Radio
support the qualitative analysis above. The Hungarian Democratic
Forum (the leading government party) had the largest amount of advertising.
The Socialist Party and the Free Democrats followed closely. With
the exception of the Hungarian Truth and Life Party (MIEP), the smaller
parties lacked the financial resources to compete with the large parties.
After the first round of elections, the Young Democrats’ Alliance (FIDESZ)
withdrew all their advertising, due to their poor results in that round.
Most of the advertising was carried out on Radio Kossuth, much less on
Radio Petöfie, and none at all on Radio Bartok.
Electoral programmes were broadcast on Radio Kossuth
alone. Although all 15 parties running for election did receive access,
the Hungarian Democratic Forum had the greatest amount of airtime; second
was the Socialist Party, followed by the Free Democrats, the Republic Party,
the Agricultural Alliance, and MIEP. The remaining small parties
were each allocated roughly the same amount of time. The figures
are summaries of both rounds of the election. After the second round,
attention was mainly focused on the winning parties—the Socialists and
the Free Democrats—and on the loss of the Democratic Forum. The success
of the two winning parties showed that, although they had been badly under-represented
prior to the first round of elections, they had the support of the population.
The Electoral Code stipulates that parties had to be
given equal representation in news programmes, and in the case of electoral
reports, that time had to be allocated in proportion to the number of candidates
nominated. In order to achieve the latter objective, a list was prepared
prior to the election campaign on which the 15 parties concerned were given
points in accordance with their number of candidates.
This list was to serve as a guideline for providing
proportional coverage. The findings of the analysis, however, show
that this procedure was not adhered to as planned. Although the car
accident involving the Chairman of the Socialist Party, Dr. Gyula
Horn, dominated the news programmes, the Democratic Forum still received
the greatest radio coverage.
In summary, the fact that advertising was allowed on
the public service radio but was not regulated in any way, it provided
indisputable advantage to those parties which could afford it and disadvantages
to those which could not afford it. This was especially true of the
small parties which received less coverage anyway. Hungarian Radio
provided the only opportunity to the Socialist and Free Democratic Parties
to voice their opinions on equal terms with the Democratic Forum, the governing
Party. This opportunity was virtually denied to them by Hungarian
Television.
The editorial team of Hungarian Radio, despite the direct
interference of the Head of Radio, maintained a considerable degree of
professionalism and managed to provide acceptable election coverage.
A conscious effort was made to monitor the station’s own programmes and
to exercise sufficient self-control. This was achieved despite the
divisions among the staff and the loss of a considerable number of the
station’s best journalists, and evidenced the responsibility shown by individual
journalists in times of great difficulty.
It is interesting to note that no complaint was filed
against Hungarian Radio with the National Electoral Board.