Cracked Pot In The Garden

Michael Hedges January 9, 2012 - Follow on Twitter

In the blink of the eye, we’re in 2012. Little has changed across the threshold except the calendar. Despots continue to push on media. But there’s always an election coming. “Every nation,” we’ve heard, “gets the government it deserves.”

Criticism of Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s government has been continuous since the 2010 parliamentary election returned the right-wing Fidesz party to power. His view of media appears simple: control it or kill it. On taking office Mr. Orban brought forth broad changes in the country’s media laws from placing Fidesz party loyalists in charge of an expanded media regulator and the public broadcaster to extending government authority over all media and its function.

In response to media and human rights watchers – and the European Commission – Mr. Orban’s government has consistently claimed European precedents for each and every new measure. This appeal to common practice resonates among supporters and aggravates critics. The “everybody does it” argument is an ethical slur.

A group of academic investigators from Central European University’s Center for Media and Communication Studies (CMCS) and media law experts from twenty countries tackled the Hungarian government’s assertion that everything in its recently changed media laws can be found in elsewhere. The recently published findings (January 5) – An Assessment of the Consistency of Hungary’s Media Laws with European Practices and Norms (See here PDF) - broadly refute the Hungarian government’s rationale for amending it’s media laws. The analysis also points to the larger dilemma of inconsistent European media laws.

The CMCS researchers and national experts examined seven specific areas of Hungarian media law and regulation finding they are “largely inconsistent with the cited European practices and norms, based on an examination of the legal precedents provided and on the expert analyses of how these precedents are implemented in these European and EU-member countries.” And further: “The Hungarian Government’s references omit or inaccurately characterize relevant factors of the other countries’ regulatory systems, and as a result, the examples do not provide sufficient and/or equivalent comparisons to Hungary’s media regulation system. In many examples, the Hungarian Government accurately presents a portion of a legal provision or regulation, however the reference either omits elements of how the regulation is implemented or the regulation cited does not correspond with the scope and powers of Hungary’s media laws or Media Authority.”

In other words, authors of Hungary’s recent media laws seemed to pick and choose legal precedents to fit their purpose, perhaps after the fact, sometimes missing key elements. The researchers and experts compared Hungarian legislation to 56 media laws from 20 European countries.

Oft criticized by media watchers inside and outside Hungary has been the establishment and organization of media regulator National Media and Infocommunications Authority (NMHH) and within it the monitoring and enforcement agency Media Council established by amendments to the Media Act (July 2010). The Prime Minister appoints the NMHH head who then becomes head of the Media Council for everlasting nine-year terms. First appointed was Annamária Szalai, a Fidesz party operative. The NMHH and Media Council replaced the National Radio and Television Board (ORTT), which caused an international stir by rejecting license renewal applications for two foreign owned national radio broadcasters, awarding the licenses instead to politically favored candidates. The ORTT board president at the time quit in protest and Hungary’s Constitutional Court called the license renewal process flawed, possibly illegal but impossible to overturn.

The Hungarian government’s response (January 3, 2011, referenced in the CMCS study) to criticism that the media regulator and its enforcement branch lack political independence cited nine European countries (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland and theUK) with a “much smaller degree of independence from government.” The CMCS team of experts found that heads of state do indeed appoint media regulator board members, typically the chairperson, but other board members are named by legislatures, often through public tender, and the media regulator is subservient to a higher authority. In four countries (Denmark, Ireland, Netherlands and Sweden) the Hungarian government cited outdated media laws.

Public broadcasting in Hungary has, in recent years, been severely challenged by management and funding issues. And, quite accurately, no European public broadcaster has been immune to organizational criticism. Through its new media laws Hungary’s public radio, television and state news agency MTA have been merged into a single agency with politically appointed directors and a funding agency with similar political appointees with content oversight. The Media Council.appoints the chairmen. Further, MTA singularly supplies news content to all public radio and television channels.

Merging public broadcasting units is, of course, fiscally appealing. The transition from State to public broadcasting has been rocky even in better economic times. The Hungarian government, explaining the need to merge the broadcasting and new units, described its public broadcasting, with some accuracy, as “dysfunctional.”

The CMCS study found that the example of centralized public media funding given by the Hungarian government (Finland) was wholly inaccurate. And of the six countries (Austria, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Switzerland, and the UK) cited as having politically appointed public broadcasting directors, the Hungarian government was sort of inaccurate. One unavoidable conclusion is that more political control over public media is a trend media watchers find hard to deny.

Political control of French public broadcasting was cited by the Hungarian government as normal European practice. French president Nicolas Sarkozy has made reform of public media a major part of public policy, including direct appointment of public broadcasting directors. While the process has been dutifully tortured, French public radio and television has substantially changed since 2009.

Arguably, the most egregious of Hungary’s recent media regulations allows the Media Authority the power to impose sanctions (large fines, suspensions and license revocations) against any media outlet for a range of sins disrespecting “human dignity” and “constitutional order” to failure to provide “fair and balanced” news coverage. The Media Authority is, then, the sole arbiter of the violations, with limited opportunities for independent review. Sanctions can be applied to managers, directors and editors.

The Hungarian government said the large fines are essential because “a few hundred thousand forint fine” would not prevent “a broadcaster with [an] annual revenue of several tens of millions or even hundreds of millions of forints … from repeating its infringing behavior and will not set a dissuasive example for other broadcasters.” The government also equated a broadcasting license to a restaurant license. It cited 15 European countries (Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, and theUK) having similar sanctioning practices.

While every country has some level of sanction available to one or more government agencies for various violations, the CMCS experts found none with the scope of the Hungarian media law. Indeed, in seven of the countries cited by the Hungarian government sanctions have never been applied.

The media law review, most likely, will be widely circulated ahead of the next meeting (January 25th) of a European Commission (EC) taskforce created last October by EC Vice President for the Digital Agenda Neelie Kroes to look into legal aspects of media freedom and pluralism. The Hungarian government is certainly in the sights of the EC for a variety of controversial decisions, not limited to media laws. Conventional wisdom suggests PM Orban’s government will maintain popular support for snubbing the EC, the IMF and any other foreigners.

“One of the noblest attributes of democracy,” noted American writer E. B. White in the New Yorker (1942), “is that it contains no one who can truthfully say, of two pots, which is the cracked, which is the whole.”

See also in ftm Knowledge

Europe’s Radio – Eastern Europe

Eastern Europe’s radio writes new rules. In fact, most everything about radio in this region is new... and changes often. The ftm Knowledge file reports on Belarus, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Moldova, Poland, Romania, Russia, Slovakia and Ukraine. 102 pages PDF (June 2011)

Order here

Media Laws – New and Revised

Policy makers and politicians are writing and rewiting media laws and rules at a breakneck pace. As broadcasters and publishers grapple with changes brought about by digital development, new business models and financial distress, the new media is feeling rules tightening around it. From licensing and public broadcasting to privacy, piracy and copyright this ftm Knowledge file Media Laws – New and Revised summarizes new laws and revised laws from a media perspective. 135 pages PDF (December 2010)

Order here