Hot topics click link for more
A notable German media award this year has gone to an investigative reporting team that no longer exists. The Medium Magazin awards, always highly anticipated, were revealed this week with several categories allotted to journalism. In a special category the Ippen Investigativ team of Ippen Media Group was awarded for investigating corruption and abuse of power, noted Süddeutsche Zeitung (May 23). The award jury commended the Ippen Investigativ team for “sending an important signal for freedom of the press and investigative journalism.”
While most German news media fell all over themselves reporting the awards, particularly when their own journalists and editors were honored, mention of Ippen Investigtiv was muted, pushed to the bottom of the column. The four Ippen Investigativ reporters detailed the abuse of power scandal involving of tabloid Bild editor-in-chief Julian Reichelt. Dirk Ippen, Ippen Media Group principal, opted not to publish the account, fearing the ire of Bild publisher Axel Springer chief executive Mathias Döphner, reported media blog Übermedien (October 18, 2021). (See more about investigative reporting here) (See more about Axel Springer here) (See more about media in Germany here)
The Ippen Investigtiv reporters, however, turned over their material to German magazine Der Spiegel and US publication the New York Times, which illuminated the activities of Herr Reichelt to the world. Then the Ippen Investigativ team - Juliane Löffler, Daniel Drepper, Marcus Engert and Katrin Langhans - exited their positions for other German outlets. They had previously been the investigative team at BuzzFeed Germany, which Ippen Media Group acquired in 2021 and renamed. German news media found avoiding the subject nearly impossible. Herr Reichelt exited his position. Herr Döphner remains.
When the European Commission ordered Member States to block, remove and otherwise ban Russian propaganda media channels the reaction was generally positive. The sanctions took effect about a week after Russian Federation military invaded Ukraine. There were - and remain - few fans of anything Russian apart from the usual suspects.
In the ensuing weeks, a bubble has grown questioning the action in terms of censorship. It has expanded from a purely intellectual exercise to something for courts. Those who noted the menace of propaganda and howled “there must be a law” suddenly saw the spectre of censorship. Publishers, online and otherwise, that only occasionally offer conspiracy theories appealing to certain subscribers, not to forget ad bots, have long been attached to preventing censorship in any form. Free speech is the mantra. Veracity and fair speech, not so much. (See more about propaganda here)
A petition has been filed at the European Court of Justice (CJEU) in Luxembourg (May 24) seeking to block the European Commission (EC) ruling on Russian propaganda channels. Petitioners are the Freedom of Information Coalition (FOIC), which include Dutch journalist association NVJ, internet provider Freedom Internet and Dutch digital civil rights advocate Bits of Freedom. "This was a political decision, without judicial review," said Bits of Freedom policy advisor Rejo Zenger, quoted by NL Times (May 24). "The decision to make information inaccessible should not rest with our heads of government but with independent judges.” Added NVJ general secretary Thomas Bruning: "disinformation should not be combated with censorship in a constitutional state.” (See more about censorship here)
Russian propaganda channels and certain individuals have managed to evade EC sanctions, without surprise, using social media, noted the Disinformation Situation Center, itself a coalition of civil society advocates organized to combat Russian disinformation. “RT (formerly Russia Today) had not only found ways of getting around the sanctions,” said a recent report from the group, quoted by Euronews (May 6). “They had made changes that placed them multiple steps ahead of regulators.” The Russian Federation remains at war with Ukraine.
With misinformation rampant across the breadth of the media sphere, often causing great confusion if not distress, regulators are regularly tasked to provide solutions. In some jurisdictions media regulators take to the job quite seriously. Others, citing free speech protections, simply stand aside. Then too, some jurisdictions head in the opposite direction; punishing publishers, broadcasters and their employees for telling the truth. This explains a lot.
French audiovisual regulator Arcom, until recently known as CSA, submitted “formal notices” to TV channel CNews regarding “controversial remarks” made on two different programs, reported AFP (May 20). In both instances anti-Semitic and coronavirus denial conspiracy theories were proffered. After scores of public complaints, Arcom noted "the obligation of honesty and rigor in the presentation and processing of information" and control over broadcasts. Another notice from Arcom could result in sanctions, perhaps tough. (See more about disinformation here)
CNews in operated by Canal+ Group, a subsidiary of Vivendi, principally controlled by Vincent Bolloré. The channel is known for opinions bending to the right-wing. Last year the company was fined €200,000 for hate speech. (See more about media in France here) (See more about Vivendi here)
In a blistering rebuke of the French State Council in mid-April international press freedom advocate Reporters sans Frontieres (RSF), which is based in Paris, complained of the “inaction of Arcom in the face of CNews' breaches of its obligations.” RSF went on to note that CNews “has been transformed under the leadership of Vincent Bolloré into a medium that broadcasts opinions in a massive and direct way… regularly in defiance (of) independence, honesty and pluralism of information. The nature of the channel has been radically transformed into a media of influence serving a specific political agenda, that of Mr. Bolloré.”
In some parts of the world media workers - journalists included - are noted for robust levels of self-regard. This is not limited to those newspaper columnists, TV anchors and radio stars who can’t walk down the street for some civilian asking for a selfie. Media jobs are typically quite decent, many perks, good lighting. Be grateful for unions, right?
Turkey is not one of those places. Results of a Turkish Journalists’ Association members survey recorded last autumn have trickled out, finding its way to Swedish media portal Journalisten SE (May 20). Owing to widely reported analysis of the Turkish media scene during recent years - like the annual Reporters sans Frontieres (RSF) World Press Freedom Index - there should be little surprise that its journalists are not happy. (See more about media in Turkey here)
For this survey 317 Turkish journalists were interviewed, a likely representative sample. A bit more than one-third said they had been arrested or prosecuted for their professional practice sometime in their careers. They generally feel underpaid and fear for job security, not atypical for striving professionals (See more about journalism here)
Take a deep breath at this last part. About 7 in 10 believe they are not free to do their jobs. Eight in 10 agreed that “the job is becoming more and more useless every day.” However, about two-thirds said they are happy in their jobs. The survey and report was produced through the Media4Democracy Project of the European Union.
Publisher editorial boards always go overboard at election time. The recent Australian elections were a testament to headline grabbing fireworks. And with a new prime minister sworn in and the former dispatched the editorial grievance continues.
Australians went to the polls this past Saturday (May 21) to elect members of parliament. The center-right Liberal/National Coalition led by prime minister Scott Morrison sought a fourth term. The center-left Australian Labor Party challenged under the leadership of Anthony Albanese. Some editorial boards endorsed the Coalition, giving deference to stability, some Labor, arguing for change. On Sunday (May 22) PM Morrison conceded. (See more about elections and media)
“There’s been a quick consensus take on the federal election,” wrote media correspondent Christopher Warren in Crikey (May 23). “Australians have voted for a more civilised, less combative, post-conflict politics. From climate wars to (largely imported) culture wars, Saturday’s vote was emphatic: ‘Yeah, nah.’” Mr. Warren is a former president of the International Federation of Journalists. Crikey is an Australian online magazine, once considered “idiosyncratic,” now a “must read” for political followers and participants. (See more about media in Australia here)
An all-staff memo went out from News Corp Australasia executive chairman Michael Miller that there was “no one News Corp view” and editors were “free to decide which party to endorse,” reported the Guardian Australia (April 13). Unsurprisingly, all News Corp Australian titles, save one, endorsed the Coalition. That exception was NT News, described as “crocodile-obsessed,” whatever that means. News Corp Australasia is a subsidiary of News Corp, principally owned by the Murdoch family.
|
