State Media Outlets Find It Hard to Divorce Power
Bulgaria:By Georgi Filipov (AIM Sofia)
If the news media are considered an important power in society, then state-run broadcasters are certainly at the top. In over 11 years since the collapse of Communism, state TV and radio are still among organizations in which change is proceeding at a very slow pace.
The Bulgarian National TV (BNT) network and Bulgarian National Radio (BNR), however, are no longer mouthpieces of the ruling parties as they were back in 1989. Over the past years, however, they did not do much in transforming themselves into public broadcasters. The reason for this does not lie in the unwillingness of journalists to do so or in their inexperience. In the period in question the parties in power made only small steps in freeing BNT and BNR from their role of cog wheels in the propaganda machine, promoting the three branches of power, and primarily executive branch. In spite of the passing of a law regulating the information sector and the forming of an independent body to monitor, supervise and direct the operations of the media, the two state media outlets have remained dependent of the ruling party, as was proved by the most recent events in BNR.
When the law on the media is in question, the situation is best described by the saying that even the best law is poor if it is poorly enforced. Although compiled in accordance with all demands of European legislation, the law on the media aims to ensure society's control over radio and TV stations. To this purpose a National Council for Radio and TV has been formed. It was entrusted with appointing general managers in the two state-run broadcasters, to assess editorial policies of private radio and TV stations seeking broadcasting licenses, to monitor whether declared editorial policies are being respected and to ensure respect for copyright laws. In a word, it supervises everything that is controlled in the broadcasting sector in Bulgaria.
Meanwhile, the council has discredited itself completely, and a debate on how its members should be elected is now under way. So far, it has had representatives appointed by the Parliament and the Bulgarian president. Since both institutions are controlled by the same party -- the Alliance of Democratic Forces -- the council was predominantly partial. Parliament preferred to be represented by intellectuals, mostly writers, whereas the president, Petar Stojanov, chose legal and media experts. Intellectuals, themselves politically affiliated, could not help making a faux pas. About a month ago, the council appointed their almost unknown colleague, a writer, to manage BNR, outraging employees of the radio station. Journalist protests continue and appear unlikely to end soon, due to the obstinate refusal of the council to review its appointment of writer Ivan Borislavov.
The scandal would not have had such a magnitude and would not have affected the station's employees to such an extent, had not the council asked for their position in selecting a new manager. The BNR journalists backed their colleague of long standing, Rajka Konstantinova, but the council members prevailed in selecting Borislavov. It was no accident that one of the demands of the protesting journalists was that the manner of appointing council members be changed. On the one hand, the council turned into a body executing orders coming from the ruling circles, and on the other, it brings together a group of obviously incompetent people. Each time a new BNR or BNT manager is selected, the desires of the ruling party are taken into account, which raises the question of how the current situation differs from the not so recent past when the managers were selected by Parliament? The answer is obvious -- there is no difference whatsoever. Only this time around observers from the Council of Europe are treated to a skilled show in democracy, and the council has became a scapegoat for poor government. Everything else is just as it used to be.
The transformation of BNT and BNR into public broadcasters would proceed more quickly and easily if they had any competition. Driven by the desire to retain an information monopoly and uphold the politicians in power, regardless of whether they are Socialists or Democrats, they are unwilling to allow any competition. Only in 2000 did the council announce a tender, at which it granted two licenses for national TV stations and several permits for cable and satellite TV stations. Thus BTV, owner by Rupert Murdock, and NVA TV, owned by the Greek chain Antena, became major competitors to the national broadcaster.
One of the most important requirements posed by the tender was transparency and a clear source of capital. Of course, foreign companies had no difficulties proving their capabilities to sustain national TV stations, and as such were favored over national bidders. The issuing of radio licenses was slowed down in a similar way. Regardless of the great number of local radio stations, only at the end of 2000 was the first broadcasting permits granted to a private national radio station -- Darik Radio. Under pressure from a growing number of candidates for new radio broadcasters, the council was forced to embark on a speedy and comprehensive campaign of licensing them. This process ended relatively smoothly because most of the stations feature entertainment and have no major impact on political life. It is possible that the presence of other, more competitive broadcasters will finally force BNT and BNR to become truly public stations. Thus they would no longer have any great political responsibility and serve as a tool for lauding the successes of the ruling parties, regardless of their political colors.
BNR and BNT still enjoy an advantage over other outlets in accessing state funds. A project aimed at procuring funding them by taxing the population has failed. One of the reasons for the failure was its unclear concept -- was the tax to apply to each electricity meter, TV set, or household? Until this is resolved the two broadcasters will be funded by the state. In addition, the two stations are still licensed to run commercials which is directly affecting other broadcasters, for which commercials are the main source of income.
Another project in the media sector, envisaged to portray Bulgaria as a democratic country to observers in Europe, was also devoid of substance. The law on the accessibility of information turned out to be completely useless for journalists and very useful for politicians. Although passed in 2000, it failed in changing anything. It contains provisions which not only do not make information more accessible, but in fact, make it more inaccessible, that is, helps conceal it from the public eye. Many articles authorize state officials to arbitrarily interpret their provisions. If a journalist or another person seeking information persists, he or she can file a complaint with a court, but this is but another dead-end from which their is no easy way out.
Many non-government organizations criticized the project, which officials spent three years preparing. According to them, it is unclear, confusing and poorly pieced together. One of the law's most important elements is to clearly establish what information is accessible to the public and which is not. The introductory definition, however, is so ambiguous that it, in fact, fails to define anything. Namely, it says that citizens "can access any information which is of importance to society and social life in the Republic of Bulgaria, which enables them to form their opinion on the operation of legally specified subjects." In addition, it is unclear why the law pertains not only to state organizations, but to state-run companies and news outlets as well. It is obvious that lawmakers were driven by the desire to supervise and control the media, although the basic idea is its very opposite.