Speaking about transparency in the media I should suggest, first of all, the understanding of the term itself, as one referring to the open access to information concerning the ownership on the limited companies issuing printed or audio-visual programmes and the relations between the actors of the media market. It is a normal need for a competitional landscape, if we really want to secure pluralism and democracy and if we don’t just pretend it. Thinking about the almost unlimited power networks like Globo, in Brazil, and Televisa, in Mexico, have obtained, we should not forget that the media concentration, being an economic process, in a free market economy is almost a natural one; and this process is expanding right now. We should not stop it, if we still are democrats, but we should not be ashamed to regulate it, especially now, when globalisation seems to be the key word for understanding today’s environment, both social and economic, political as well as cultural. More or less worried, the world governments are watching the struggle for power and influence between the transnational companies with or without the different groups of interests created around them. The process is moving in the same direction, all around the world, irrespective of the size of the nations and of their level of development. Only the stages are different and, according to them, the governmental attitudes towards them.
One may say that, in Romania, some intellectuals have tried, before 1990, to form groups around some cultural journals and magazines, from where they tried to oppose the régime. The periodicals were, of course, state-owned, like almost everything in Romania, but behind them, some groups of interests were trying to resist to the dominant, obedient press. As for the radio and television, they were more under the severe control of the communist propaganda, and we can consider that they reflected more clear the name of the owner: the party/state. In fact, in a totalitarian state it is nonsense to speak about media concentration and transparency: the media were entirely and openly in the hand of the communist clan who owned the country, in spite of a pretended common, “popular” ownership.
In the very beginning of our reborn democracy, the game of “we are the people—we are the owner” was still played by some periodicals; privatisation was still a disputed desideratum, and many experienced journalists hid themselves behind the collective property, being in fact, both, political and economic interested. However, already in 1990-1991, the process of privatisation has begun, and the public has found out, sooner or later, who the owners were. Of course, I am speaking about the older newspapers and magazines, which have changed their names or not, have continued to be printed.
The newly created periodicals or those re-established after decades of forced silence were, more or less, politically driven, so the main false card they played was that of impartiality on the political scene. Of course, some of them were openly devoted to a political party, movement or trend. Taking into consideration the last eight years and speaking both about old and new periodicals, we may say that Dreptatea, Liberalul, România Mare, Politica, Azi, România libera, Cotidianul, Socialistul, Vremea, Totusi iubirea and many others, of less importance, made no secret on their political preferences, in spite of the fact that the greatest part of them were not, officially, parties’ periodicals. As for the private radio and TV stations, when they appeared, the climate was already different in Romania and, more important, very soon after that, a law came into force for them: the Audio-visual Law. However, before being promulgated, a national cartel (UNTELPROM) was formed uniting 12 television stations, among which TVI Timisoara, TVI Oradea, SOTI Bucuresti and Cinemar Baia Mare.1
Let us leave aside history and come onto the present state of situation.
It is very difficult to include the whole Romanian mass media under the same umbrella, because only the audio-visual one has a specific law for it. The printed press has refused constantly to be put under the surveillance of a regulatory body and the recent code of conduct adopted by some leading newspapers, magazines and press agencies—grouped in the Romanian Press Club—has remained only a pious statement, by now. We shall come back at this subject later on.
That is why it is the huge responsibility of the National Audio-visual Council to keep an eye on the media sector, for which it has a regulatory power, in order to obtain the relevant information about the way in which the capital is distributed among the shareholders of the applicants and their identity.
Under the provisions of the Audio-visual Law, article 6, par. (1), “No public or private, natural or legal person shall be a direct or indirect majority investor or shareholder in more than one audio-visual communication company, and it shall not hold more than twenty per cent of the registered capital in other similar companies.” The only exception admitted—in the same article, par. (3), is that of the two public services on radio and television.
First of all, discussing about the way in which the National Audio-visual Council have brought into force this provision, we should not be very content with. Many times, the shareholders are changed and the National Audio-visual Council is not informed. On one side, the Romanian authority has only a few inspectors to monitor the whole national spectrum of broadcasters. On the other side, even when a company is forced to recognise that the article 6 provisions were broken, this will not be considered as an offence (according to the law), so that the real tools of persuasion in order to abide by the law are more or less ineffective.
Secondly, there is no decision taken, by now, on securing the transparency on the audio-visual market. The reason is a very practical one: a debate has started, both in the parliamentary Committees on culture, arts and mass media, and in some media circles, around this theme, each time the members of the National Audio-visual Council have tried to regulate it. But the public debate was not so favourable to the Council. It seems, also, that one of the clearest recommendations adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in this field, the Recommendation No. R (94)13, on measures to promote media transparency, is not taken into consideration. That is why, in fact, there is no credit about the information circulated reaching the public, information that should be requested by the National Audio-visual Council, and which should be publicly available. The Recommendation, for instance, considers that there are three categories of information desirable to be publicly known: that concerning the persons or bodies participating in the structure which is to operate the service and on the nature and the extent of the respective participation of these persons or bodies in the structure concerned; that on the nature and the interests held by the above persons and media in other media or in media enterprises, even in other economic sectors; and, finally, that on other persons or bodies likely to exercise a significant influence on the programming policy of this service by the provision of certain kinds of resources, the nature of which should be clearly specified in the licensing procedures, to the service or to the persons or bodies involved in the latter’s operations. It is true that our legislators, who voted our national law, two years before this recommendation was issued, were not aware of the complexity of the problem. That is why, in my opinion, we should not be too harsh with the National Audio-visual Council. It seems that when they tried to regulate a problem that was left in a rather hazy stage by the Parliament, they were criticised for trying to legislate in place of the Parliament. If they wanted not to be blamed for a severe attitude towards the broadcasters, they were accused of being interested in accepting the chaos in the Romanian audio-visual landscape. It is for sure that many provisions, about securing the transparency of the media, should be put in an amended version of the Law. There are some hopes that a global revision of the Law would be discussed next year in the Parliament. Maybe then, a national public register will be established, with the whole information concerning the prevention of both the concentration—horizontal and vertical—and the cross ownership, above the limits accepted by the society, at a certain point. Of course, this will not be possible in the closed limits of the Audio-visual Law. A law concerning the mass media communication should be necessary, now, in Romania, in my opinion. I think that we have to observe that the perils of an uncontrolled development of the Information Technology, in a country that is still in the infancy of the democratic society, are very high. It is so, also, in older democracies, and we should not forget the Italian example—with the Forza Italia Party, emerged from the power of a TV broadcasting company—and the recent disputes around the claimed ambitions of supremacy held by Microsoft. However, in Romania, still, the perils of a much too powerful presence of the transnational companies are not high. In fact, we are lacking the foreign investments, and when officials from, for instance, Time Warner-Turner—Disney ABC visit Romania, they are received by top level personalities. But sooner or later, even Romania will have to obey the international treaties, in light of the European Agreement and of the Marrakech Treaty.
Finally, Romania still has not ratified the European Convention on Transfrontier Television. The provisions of the 6th Article, par. 2, are very clear expressed: “Information about the broadcaster shall be made available, upon request, by the competent authority of the transmitting Party. Such information shall include, as a minimum, the name or denomination, seat and status of the broadcaster, the name of the legal representative, the composition of the capital, the nature, purpose and mode of financing of the programme service the broadcaster is providing or intends providing.” However, it is doubtful, in my opinion, that the National Audio-visual Council would be able to provide reliable information when asked—of course, after Romania would ratify the Convention.
I shall not argue with those who, like the Association of Commercial Television in Europe (ACT), are considering that “strict media ownership rules based on the share ownership participation in a company should be abolished.”2 It is an extremely interested opinion. Romania has, in fact, no strict media ownership. It almost has no respected ownership rules at all. However, it is strange that in a country like Romania, where, for many decades, only one voice was heard—in spite of the fact that the communist party, also, pretended that everyone was allowed to speak—it is strange, so, that an idea of introducing such rules seems more logical than that of permitting everything. Important social groups, without having an economic power, would be completely voiceless in an entirely open system. Let’s take some examples from the today’s Romanian media.
The Tinerama weekly is published by a limited company owned by the same person who is the main shareholder of the Tinerama radio station and who publishes many other temporary periodicals.
The Tele7abc TV station is owned by the same shareholders with those owning the Activ FM radio station. One of its founders—not anymore involved in the broadcasting, now—was, at that moment, the owner of an important press group, including the daily Evenimentul Zilei and the weeklies Expres and Expres Magazin.
The Romanian owners of the TV station Prima TV are, also, the main shareholders at the 21 radio station.
The Intact Corporation for Culture and Art owns a TV station (Antena 1), will soon launch another TV channel (Antena 2), has a radio station (Romantic) and publishes a few periodicals, including the Jurnalul National daily. I should add that the main shareholder is leading, also, a political party.
The Media group is a network formed by the PRO TV and Acasa TV stations, a press agency, the PRO FM radio station and another radio station, which is waiting to obtain the license and some periodicals, including a sports daily. More than that, Media Pro Group is an important stockholder at the mobile GSM telecommunications company, Mobil Rom SA.
Of course, many other examples could be offered and we should not forget that many of the Bucharest TV stations are having affiliated local stations almost everywhere, in the country. One may remember that when the president of the GCP Ltd. Co. was accused of financial irregularities, his main media defender was the Curierul National daily, where general manager is his own brother.
Nobody could attend perfect neutrality and objectiveness. Personal (I should say human) relations between the owners or editors in the media will always be important and there will always remain not regulated areas. It is not a secret, for instance, that a certain general director of a daily newspaper is the editor of an important talkshow realised at the TV station where the general director is his son-in-law. Of course, it is not in this case that I see the danger, but I think that the whole issue, including such cases—as those described—should be a topic for discussion and for urgent debate.
I said that I should come back to the printed press, where a code of conduct was promoted. In my opinion, it will last at least a decade or even more, up to the moment when this type of document would be appreciated by all the social actors and spectators of the media game. I am not a fan of the idea of having a special press law. This is because I simply think that it would be, already, outdated. When I am reading the tomorrow editorial of my favourite newspaper, on the screen of my computer, an evening in advance before the daily is sold on the street, can we speak anymore, of written press and audio-visual press? Very soon, the technological reality will be different, even for Romania. In not too many years, the interactive television, the satellite and cable multichannel packages, the DVD on/off line hybrid products and services would become a reality. If you don’t believe me, just think that only 7 years ago, for instance, we had no pagers, no mobile phones, no Internet cafés, no CD-ROMs, no cable television and no digital transmissions. Who dares to predict the Romanian society 7 years from now on; a society that could be not prepared to face the new reality. A code of conduct is, obviously, a very good thing. But it’s not enough, as long as there are parliamentarians, for instance, accused for not respecting neither the minimal, unwritten code of manners, nor the written penal laws.
Maybe, in today’s Romania, it is not so fashionable to have a not-so-liberal attitude. However, it is my opinion that the time to let the “invisible hand” to act in the audio-visual space has not come yet. At least, as long as we are speaking of limited space of competition. In fact, I am only claiming the necessity to lay the audio-visual Romanian reality on the basis of the principle of regulated pluralism.3 It is, in my opinion, the most adequate principle that one should substantiate the building of a healthy audio-visual market.
I shall try to repeat some of the main steps, in my opinion, that would be appropriate, in order to achieve this goal, in Romania: the ratifying of the European Convention on Transfrontier Television; the adoption of a new law, devoted to the entire area of mass media communications, which would bring into force, also, the Recommendation No. R (94)13, on measures to promote media transparency of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe and new tasks for a new National Audio-visual Council; specific regulations inforced by this Council. And above all these, balance and wisdom in all our acts.
Virgil Stefan Nitulescu
Notes:
1 Alin Teodorescu, Disguised players waiting in the wings: Romania,
in The Development of the Audiovisual Landscape in Central Europe Since
1989 (London: John Libbey Media, 1996), pp. 179-196.
2 The Information Society: A Challenge for Europe, Memorandum presented
by the Association of Commercial Television in Europe (ACT) (Strasbourg:
Council of Europe 1997), p. 5.
3 J. B. Thomson, The Media and Modernity: A Social Theory of the Media
(Cambridge: Polity Press, 1995), apud, Hans Mommaas, The Politics of Culture
and World Trade, in Trading Culture: GATT, European cultural policies and
the transatlantic market, Annemoon van Hemel, Hans Mommaas and Cas Smithuijsen
(eds.) (Amsterdam: Boekman Foundation 1996), pp. 11-23.