01 Jun 20
[vc_row full_width=”stretch_row_content_no_spaces” full_height=”yes” css=”.vc_custom_1591025337019{padding-top: 55px !important;padding-bottom: 155px !important;background-image: url(https://www.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/trump-shadow-pic-for-slapps-credit-3-scaled.jpg?id=113748) !important;background-position: center !important;background-repeat: no-repeat !important;background-size: cover !important;}” el_class=”text_white” el_id=”Introduction”][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”A gathering storm:
the laws being used to silence the media” font_container=”tag:h1|text_align:center” use_theme_fonts=”yes” css=”.vc_custom_1590689449699{background-color: #000000 !important;background-position: center !important;background-repeat: no-repeat !important;background-size: contain !important;}”][vc_raw_html]JTNDZGl2JTIwc3R5bGUlM0QlMjJhbGlnbiUzQWNlbnRlciUzQm1hcmdpbiUzQWF1dG8lM0JiYWNrZ3JvdW5kLWNvbG9yJTNBcmdiYSUyODAlMkMwJTJDMCUyQzAuNSUyOSUzQiUyMiUzRSUzQ3AlMjBzdHlsZSUzRCUyMnRleHQtYWxpZ24lM0FjZW50ZXIlM0J3aWR0aCUzQTYwJTI1JTNCbWFyZ2luJTNBYXV0byUzQiUyMiUzRUElMjByZXZpZXclMjBvZiUyMGhvdyUyMGxhd3MlMjBhcmUlMjBiZWluZyUyMHVzZWQlMjBpbiUyMEV1cm9wZSUyMHRvJTIwYnJpbmclMjBhY3Rpb25zJTIwYWdhaW5zdCUyMGpvdXJuYWxpc3RzJTNDJTJGcCUzRSUzQyUyRmRpdiUzRQ==[/vc_raw_html][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”3/4″][vc_column_text]
Introduction
“It’s crippling,” explained Stefan Candea, a journalist and co-founder of the Romanian Centre for Investigative Journalism, when asked about the centre’s experience of being sued for its work. “It’s a major crippling of the workflow and of resources.”
Across Europe, laws are being used by powerful and wealthy individuals in the hope of intimidating and silencing journalists who are disclosing inconvenient truths that are in the public interest. These legal threats and actions are crippling not only for the media but for our democracies. Instead of being empowered to hold power to account, as is fundamental to all democratic societies, journalists face extortionate claims for damages, criminal convictions and, in some cases, prison sentences in the course of carrying out their work.
“For me it was a shock, maybe because it was the first time I was dealing with the penal code,” responded Polish investigative journalist Karolina Baca-Pogorzelska when asked about her experience of facing a criminal lawsuit. “I didn’t do anything wrong [but] at trial, I passed prisoners in handcuffs in the corridors. It broke me completely.”
In undertaking research into the scope and scale of vexatious lawsuits – or strategic lawsuits against public participation (Slapps) – against journalists and media outlets in Europe, Index hopes to help address the current dearth of information around the phenomenon. The purpose of this first report – which looks at EU states, the UK and Norway – is to provide a concise snapshot of the legal systems that are being abused in favour of the powerful, a worrying trend that we are seeing across the continent. The report is intended as a foundation for forthcoming research.[/vc_column_text][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/2″][vc_video link=”https://youtu.be/ijAAWRdkeV0″][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/2″][vc_column_text]Gill Phillips, director of editorial legal services at Guardian News and Media, said: “Against the background of the growing trend in Europe of threats to reporting by using litigation as a means of inhibiting, intimidating and silencing journalists and others working in the public interest, this timely report provides succinct and helpful jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction guidance into the main legal danger areas for journalists and others.”[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_column_text]The law is an essential component of understanding the extent to which journalists are vulnerable to legal threats and actions. But culture, which shapes the law but is also separate from it, should also be taken into account. Although it is more difficult to analyse, it determines the extent to which society sees the media as essential to democracy, and the extent of people’s readiness to resort to law to resolve disputes.
“A lot of public officials don’t understand the media as a watchdog. They still have this old communist kind of definition of the media. They think the media should be reporting what the government does for the nation,” said Beata Balogová, editor-in-chief of the newspaper SME, as she explained the impact of culture on the media in Slovakia.
“Very often they just use a lawsuit as a way of scaring journalists or trying to discourage them from pursuing some of the reports.”
Please note you can download this report as a PDF or view it as a flipbook.
Main report
[/vc_column_text][vc_single_image image=”113571″ img_size=”full” el_id=”Austria”][vc_column_text el_id=”austria”]
Austria
According to Georg Eckelsberger of the investigative media outlet Dossier, letters threatening legal action are often received by journalists in Austria.
Defamation, which is a criminal offence, is most often used. In the criminal code, it is defined as asserting or disseminating a fact that may defame or negatively affect public opinion of another person. It is punishable by a fine or one year in prison, although the latter has never been used against journalists.
The civil code and the media law also provide for significant damages to be awarded for loss of honour. The civil code is particularly open to abuse as the possible damages are uncapped and it does not provide the same weight as the media law to a public interest defence. In 2019, the civil code was used to sue Kyrgyzstani news outlet 24.kg in what was labelled by Article 19’s Barbora Bukovska as “a clear case of so-called libel tourism”.
Concerns have also been raised over the extent to which public interest is taken into consideration in other civil law cases against the media. In 2015, Dossier was ordered to pay nearly €2,000 to a plaintiff after being convicted of trespassing during an investigation, despite the findings of the investigation being uncontested.
Anyone who has been the subject of an incorrect statement in the press has the right to have a reply published, though the media has the right to refuse to publish a reply if the information was demonstrably true.[/vc_column_text][vc_single_image image=”113577″ img_size=”full” el_id=”Belgium”][vc_column_text el_id=”belgium”]
Belgium
Although defamation is a criminal offence, punishable with a fine or prison sentence, journalists are never brought to court on such charges. This is mostly due to the fact that criminal press offences can be heard only by jury-based tribunals, which are costly and time-consuming. According to a 2017 report by the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, “the media enjoy a de facto exemption from criminal defamation laws”. In practice, this does not completely stop plaintiffs from filing criminal lawsuits against journalists.
Civil defamation is addressed as a tort under the civil code. The claimant must demonstrate the fault, the damage and the causal link between the fault and the damage. There are no limits or precise guidelines on the amount of pecuniary or non-pecuniary damages that may be awarded, but damages for civil defamation usually range between €1,000 and €10,000.
Concerns have been raised about Belgian courts’ propensity to grant pre-publication injunctions at the request of private companies that claim their rights have been violated. In 2015, a court in Namur blocked the launch issue of Belgian investigative magazine Médor following a request from a pharmaceutical company that claimed it had been wrongly accused in one of its articles. The ban was annulled two weeks later.
Anyone referred to in a newspaper, magazine or audio-visual broadcast has the right to reply. Although the right of reply does not apply to internet-based media, case law applies and there is a legal proposal in the pipeline.[/vc_column_text][vc_single_image image=”113580″ img_size=”full” el_id=”Bulgaria”][vc_column_text]
Bulgaria
While lawsuits are not the only tool used to intimidate and discredit journalists in Bulgaria, they remain a serious threat to investigative journalism, which is already struggling in the country.
Criminal defamation is often used to bring legal actions against the media, including against individual journalists. Insult and slander remain criminal offences, punishable by fines but not imprisonment. Concerns have been raised around the ability of the courts to protect journalists from vexatious criminal charges, especially following the conviction of Rossen Bossev on defamation charges last year.
Compensation may be sought under the Obligations and Contracts Act, which allows for unlimited non-pecuniary damages to be awarded. The burden of proof is on the defendant. According to the Radio and Television Act, the media will not be liable for information that has been received through official channels, for quoting official documents, or for accurately reproducing public statements.
At least one effort has been made to vexatiously sue a journalist by claiming that constitutional rights, specifically the right to dignity and reputation, was violated. However, this was rejected by the court.
Anyone affected by radio or television broadcasting has a right to respond by making a request to do so in writing within seven days from the date of the broadcast. The response can be neither edited nor shortened and should be published in the next episode or within 24 hours of receipt. The Ethical Code of the Bulgarian Media provides for a right of reply in printed media, but not all print outlets have signed the code.[/vc_column_text][vc_single_image image=”113612″ img_size=”full” el_id=”Croatia”][vc_column_text]
Croatia
According to a recent survey by the Croatian Journalists Association, there are currently at least 46 criminal lawsuits and 859 civil lawsuits filed against publishers, with claimants seeking the equivalent of approximately €9 million in damages.
Defamation and insult, punishable with fines but not imprisonment, are most often used as justification to bring legal action against the media. The offence of “heavy shaming” was abolished with changes to the criminal code, which took effect in January 2020. Although journalists are acquitted in most cases, a significant number of criminal lawsuits continue to be filed.
Civil lawsuits can be brought against publishers under the Media Act and against authors (journalists) under the Obligations Act. In a case against a journalist under the Obligations Act, the plaintiff has to prove that the defendant intentionally caused the damage, but the burden of proof under the Media Act is on the publisher. According to media lawyer Vesna Alaburić, this is why journalists are rarely sued in civil proceedings. She says that when they are, lower courts often fail to strike a fair balance between the right to freedom of expression and the right to privacy and reputation. Typical compensation for non-pecuniary damages is between the equivalent of €2,500 and €4,000.
The Croatian constitution guarantees the right for individuals to correct public information that has violated their constitutional and legal rights.[/vc_column_text][vc_single_image image=”113641″ img_size=”full” el_id=”Cyprus”][vc_column_text]
Cyprus
Although the attorney general has the authority to allow for criminal prosecution in some specific cases, defamation is no longer a criminal offence and is instead addressed under the Civil Wrongs Law. The plaintiff must prove that the publication is defamatory or that there has been malice. If it is defamatory then journalists or media outlets must prove that either the information is accurate or that it is in the public interest. European Court of Human Rights principles are generally applied.
Legal actions for violation of privacy can be brought under the constitution, which protects the right to privacy and the right to private correspondence. According to Prof Achilles Emilianides, of the University of Nicosia, compensation generally ranges from €3,000 to €20,000.
Journalists have expressed frustration over the slow pace of the judicial process, with some cases continuing for up to a decade. According to research from the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ), first-instance proceedings in Cyprus are among the slowest in the EU.
Gagging orders and injunctions can be used for both privacy and defamation, and although they are rarely granted, serious concern has been raised over their use in the past.[/vc_column_text][vc_single_image image=”113644″ img_size=”full” el_id=”Czech_Republic”][vc_column_text]
Czech Republic
Defamation is a criminal offence, punishable with a maximum sentence of between two and three years in prison (depending on the nature of the alleged defamation) or a prohibition from practising a certain profession. Charges can be brought only if the published information is alleged to be false. In practice, accusations of criminal defamation are quite rare.
The civil code provides that if a person is to be held liable for the violation of the right to dignity, esteem, honour or privacy, all three of the following conditions must be met: an unjustified infringement capable of causing moral damage, moral damage having been suffered, and a causal connection between the infringement and the damage. Financial compensation must be provided if someone’s rights have been violated (unless other remedies are sufficiently effective). While the civil code does contain a “principle of decency”, questions have been raised about its capacity to prevent vexatious claims. Under the Press Act, the publisher is legally responsible for the published content.
The right to dignity, honour, reputation and private life are protected by the constitution. A right of reply is provided for under the Radio and Television Broadcasting Act and the Press Act and stipulates that it should be limited to a factual assertion rectifying, completing, or making more accurate the assertion in the initial broadcast. The publisher is obliged to publish the reply.[/vc_column_text][vc_single_image image=”113650″ img_size=”full” el_id=”Denmark”][vc_column_text]
Denmark
Denmark has comparatively few laws to regulate the press, with the main media law principle being to balance conflicting rights. Honour, privacy and personality rights are protected by the criminal code, the Marketing Regulation and case-law principles that have been adopted from the ECtHR.
Defamation is a criminal offence, punishable with a fine or imprisonment for up to one year – increasing to two years if the statement is found to have been made in bad faith. Although factual allegations may also be considered defamatory, there is an exemption from criminal liability if the statement was made where there was reasonable cause for it, in good faith, in the public interest or in the interest of the alleged offender or others.
Lawsuits against the media are uncommon in Denmark, with most complaints being brought through the press council, which will require its decision to be published in the event of a code breach.
Requests for replies must be allowed concerning factual information if the complainant might suffer from “significant financial or other damage” and if the accuracy of the information is not entirely indisputable.[/vc_column_text][vc_single_image image=”113653″ img_size=”full” el_id=”Estonia”][vc_column_text]
Estonia
The Estonian Association of Journalists expressed concern that efforts to intimidate or threaten journalists may be rising. Legal threats and actions have mainly come from private individuals and companies, but there has been an increase in legal threats from politicians in recent years. Although threats from politicians have become more direct, intense and frequent, they have not gone beyond threats for now.
Criminal defamation charges can be brought only by a judge, a representative of a state authority or a foreign head of state, and are punishable with fines but not prison sentences.
Legal action is brought mostly under the civil code, which stipulates that rights must be exercised in good faith and not with the objective of causing damage to another person. It provides for compensation to be awarded in case of damage. Lawsuits targeting individual journalists were, until recently, very rare. In November 2019, Harju County Court decided that two journalists were held liable for the content they created. A similar proceeding is currently pending in the courts.
The constitution protects individuals’ right to not have their honour or good name defamed and provides for the right to free speech to be curtailed in order to protect it. Anyone who believes his or her reputation to have been damaged by a broadcast or publication may submit a right to reply. The publication can reject a request if it is unjustified or defies generally accepted moral standards, but it would put the outlet at risk of a lawsuit.
Both press councils – Pressinõukogu and Avaliku Sõna Nõukogu – have roles in holding the media to account, but the decisions of only the Pressinõukogu are published by the media.[/vc_column_text][vc_single_image image=”113655″ img_size=”full” el_id=”Finland”][vc_column_text]
Finland
Defamation is a criminal offence, punishable with a fine. Aggravated defamation, punishable with up to two years imprisonment, can be used for acts that cause “considerable suffering or particularly significant damage”. The law requires that only false information can lead to criminal liability. One journalist who was sued for criminal defamation last year credited the prosecutor with deciding quickly that no crime had been committed. Private claims for damages resulting from defamation can be brought only in conjunction with criminal charges, and any compensation awarded is dependent upon the outcome of the criminal case.
The Tort Liability Act provides for compensation to be awarded if the plaintiff’s liberty, peace, honour or private life have been violated. Compensation rarely exceeds €10,000. Privacy, honour and the sanctity of the home are also protected under the constitution.
Although the Finnish Council for Mass Media can only sanction code breaches by ordering the media to publish its decision, the council may still have a role in creating a less litigious media culture. The council does not handle a complaint if a corresponding court case is being brought. Anyone who can demonstrate that published material is incorrect or offensive has the right to demand equal space for a correction.[/vc_column_text][vc_single_image image=”113657″ img_size=”full” el_id=”France”][vc_column_text]
France
France is known as a plaintiff-friendly jurisdiction and fears have been raised about it becoming a libel tourism hotspot. According to media lawyer Emmanuel Tordjman, legal threats and actions have been increasing against the media in recent years. He says that most actions are taken under the 1881 Media Law, but they are increasingly being taken under the criminal code in an effort to bypass the safeguards that exist under the media law.
The 1881 law guarantees freedom of expression for the press, but also criminalises defamation and insult and makes them punishable with fines of up to €12,000. When defamation is committed against public officials – including the president, ministers and legislators – the maximum fine increases to €45,000. In practice, this fine is usually much lower. Individuals claiming defamation must bring legal action within three months of publication.
A plaintiff may also choose to take a civil case against the media, but the procedure will still be subject to the 1881 law; the only difference is that civil remedies will be awarded and the defendant cannot be fined. In both civil and criminal cases, the media must prove either that the published information was true or, if it fails to meet that standard, that it was published in good faith.
Generally, the rights of journalists are well protected, as French case law is strongly influenced by ECtHR case law. In March 2019, the Paris Court of Appeal ordered Bolloré SA to pay France Télévisions €10,000 in damages for frivolous proceedings after the company sued the media organisation in commercial court for €50 million in damages over a report scrutinising the company’s activities in Africa.
The 1881 media law stipulates that anyone who has been named or depicted in the media has the right to reply. It must be published within three days of receipt, otherwise a fine of €3,750 fine is issued.
Although it does not fall neatly under the umbrella of a Slapp, the use of national security legislation to punish journalists for publishing information that is in the public interest is also a matter of significant concern. National security legislation provides no exceptions for journalists and there is no public interest defence. It carries a prison sentence of up to five years and a €75,000 fine.[/vc_column_text][vc_single_image image=”113659″ img_size=”full” el_id=”Germany”][vc_column_text]
Germany
According to research carried out by Greenpeace, although there has been a discernible rise in the number of legal threats against journalists and activists, vexatious lawsuits rarely appear in courts due to a rigorous pre-litigation mechanism.
There are three defamation-related offences under the criminal code: insult, defamation and slander. All are punishable by either a fine or imprisonment. Action may also be brought under the civil code, although the fact that the burden of proof is on the plaintiff may disincentivise such suits from being brought. There is a provision for a responsible journalism defence, but not a wider public interest defence. In 2010, two journalists received criminal fines of €2,500 each for defaming two public prosecutors, after criticising their investigations as flawed. The appeals court overturned the sentence in 2012.
In January 2019, the Federal Civil Court issued a judgment that so-called “media law warning letters” (presserechtliche Informationsschreiben), used to intimidate and threaten media outlets from republishing coverage from other media, were justified only when they had concrete information on why publication would be illegal. According to Buzzfeed Germany’s editor-in-chief Daniel Drepper, because these letters mainly targeted celebrity news the judgment has changed little for investigative journalism. In the summer of 2019, Buzzfeed received nearly a dozen threatening letters after it published their undercover work exposing an “Alpha Mentoring” programme.
A plaintiff’s capacity to choose which court a case is heard in can also be a source of intimidation for journalists, as it results in cases being brought to cities that are perceived to be more plaintiff-friendly (such as Berlin, Cologne and Hamburg). The right of reply is regulated by the press law of each German state.[/vc_column_text][vc_single_image image=”113661″ img_size=”full” el_id=”Greece”][vc_column_text]
Greece
Both criminal and civil defamation are used to intimidate and silence journalists, with public officials being among those having brought legal action against the media. There are five separate defamation-related offences in the criminal code, all of which are punishable with fines, imprisonment or both. Journalists have been sentenced on defamation-related offences, despite the ECtHR’s ruling that the imposition of prison sentences for defamation constitutes a violation of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
In 2015, a report from the International Press Institute described Greece’s civil law framework as being “disproportionately hostile to the press”. Compensation, which usually ranges between €10,000 and €30,000, may be requested under either the civil code or the Press Law.
Serious concerns have also been expressed for the judicial system’s capacity to protect journalists from vexatious lawsuits, especially in light of a case against The Athens Review of Books. That case is now pending at the ECtHR.[/vc_column_text][vc_single_image image=”113663″ img_size=”full” el_id=”Hungary”][vc_column_text]
Hungary
According to the Hungarian Civil Liberties Union, despite the decline of independent media in the country, legal threats and actions continue to be used to intimidate and silence journalists.
Defamation, along with libel, is a criminal offence and punishable with a prison sentence. In practice, sentences tend to be converted to fines. The law favours public officials, who can count on the state’s legal counsel (free of charge) and the fact that the police will carry out the investigation. In both civil and criminal cases, proceedings are slow, sometimes taking several years to have a first-instance decision.
In 2018, the authorities brought criminal charges against the investigative journalist András Dezső for “misuse of personal data”, after he used publicly available Swedish records to challenge the claims made by activist Natalie Contessa af Sandeberg on Hungarian state television. At the time, the state prosecutor proposed to convict Dezső without a hearing.
Most lawsuits against the media are brought under the civil code. Claimants may be awarded restitution if court finds their rights to have been violated. They do not need to prove that the violation was harmful. According to investigative journalist Peter Erdelyi of 444.hu, the burden of proof weighs heavily on the media; proving that information was published in good faith is not sufficient.
There has been at least one instance of GDPR having been used to vexatiously target the media: in February 2020, a Hungarian court granted a preliminary injunction forcing Forbes Hungary to recall the latest issue of its magazine, which featured a list of the richest Hungarians. The injunction followed a complaint from the owners of Hell Energy, a Hungarian drinks manufacturer, who argued that the list was in breach of their privacy.[/vc_column_text][vc_single_image image=”113665″ img_size=”full” el_id=”Ireland”][vc_column_text]
Ireland
Although Ireland ranks highly in press freedom indexes, its legal system is among the most vulnerable in Europe to abuse by vexatious litigators. In recent years, there have been some indications to suggest it is becoming a hub for libel tourism.
The fact that defamation is no longer a criminal offence offers little comfort to journalists and media outlets due to the lengthy legal process and significant costs associated with a defence. In some cases, the burden of a lawsuit could be high enough to close a media outlet for good. Few media outlets decide to take the risk of going to court, often opting to settle instead.
Most defamation cases are heard in the High Court, where juries decide the outcome and the amount of compensation that should be awarded. According to media lawyer Michael Kealey, four days defending a case in the High Court could cost between €200,000 and €250,000 in legal fees alone. There is no maximum limit on compensation and millions of euros have been awarded in the past. Because of the time and costs associated with exhausting domestic measures, the ECtHR provides little practical protection to most Irish journalists and media outlets. Limited protection is provided by Isaac Wunder orders, which requires plaintiffs to have consent from the court to file additional lawsuits against the same party against which they’ve already filed at least one. According to Kealey, Isaac Wunder orders have been used “somewhat sparingly in civil litigation”. He said he was unaware of a successful application for such an order in a media defamation action.
Anyone who has been personally affected by information disseminated by the media can bring a complaint to the Press Council. The main sanction is publication of the Press Council’s decision.[/vc_column_text][vc_single_image image=”113667″ img_size=”full” el_id=”Italy”][vc_column_text]
Italy
Criminal defamation is commonly used and provides for sentences of up to three years. The criminal code provides for higher penalties to be applied if a political, administrative or judicial body has been defamed. Criminal cases can be brought up to three months after publication. In the past, journalists have been sentenced to up to two years in prison. Shorter sentences have been accompanied by fines of up to €15,000.
Civil lawsuits can be filed on their own or in addition to criminal lawsuits, and there is no limit on the amount of compensation that may be awarded. In the past, this has led to requests for millions of euros in damages. Civil lawsuits can be filed up to five years after publication. The time, money and resolve required to fight a lawsuit are also hugely burdensome; it can take up to eight years – and sometimes longer – to be either acquitted or convicted in a defamation case.
Right to replies are frequently requested and oblige print outlets to publish them within two days of the request if the information they originally published was either inaccurate or damaging to someone’s dignity. Despite efforts to introduce it, there is currently no legislation in place that obliges online news outlets to publish corrections.[/vc_column_text][vc_single_image image=”113669″ img_size=”full” el_id=”Latvia”][vc_column_text]
Latvia
Defamation remains a criminal offence punishable with deprivation of liberty, community service or a fine. Criminal liability applies only in cases where information that was known to be fictitious and defamatory was publicly distributed. The criminal code has also been used to charge journalists with violating the confidentiality of correspondence.
Most legal action against the media is under civil law, which allows for anyone behind the publication or broadcast to be sued. A plaintiff can request an unlimited amount for non-pecuniary damages, but compensation rarely exceeds a few thousand euros for individuals. Media outlets may face higher damages. Cases usually take four or five years but have taken up to 10 in the past. Courts almost always take ECtHR case law into account and usually rule in favour of journalists.
According to media lawyer Linda Birina, GDPR is starting to be used in place of defamation as a basis to take legal action against journalists. She expressed concern over how the court would look at GDPR cases given that there is as yet no court praxis.[/vc_column_text][vc_single_image image=”113671″ img_size=”full” el_id=”Lithuania”][vc_column_text]
Lithuania
Libel remains a criminal offence, punishable with a fine, arrest or imprisonment of up to one year. However, in practice criminal law is rarely used to bring legal action against the media.
According to a 2017 OSCE report, the Supreme Court of Lithuania often takes into account, cites and applies the standards developed in the jurisprudence of the ECtHR and the European Court of Justice.
Anyone who wishes to bring a civil claim for damages against a media outlet must first request a denial of information. A complaint can be filed with the Office of the Inspector of Journalist Ethics (out of court) without fulfilling this condition. According to the Lithuanian National Broadcaster, the right to request a denial of information is frequently used – particularly by businesspeople – who are dissatisfied with their investigations.
The civil code protects the right to privacy, honour and dignity and provides for the court to investigate requests for damages. The media is exempt from civil liability, even if the published information was untrue, as long as they can prove they acted in good faith to meet the public interest about a public person and his or her activities. According to CEPEJ’s research, Lithuania is among the fastest countries in the EU at resolving litigious civil cases, measured by the time taken by the courts to reach a decision at first instance: it typically takes less than 100 days.
The Law on the Provision of Information to the Public provides for the protection of honour and dignity as well as the protection of private life. According to the Office of the Inspector of Journalist Ethics, which investigates complaints relating to these protections, the law is rarely subject to abuse.
By law, anyone who is criticised in the media has the opportunity to justify, explain or refute false information within 14 days of publication. The outlet may refuse to publish the correction if its content “contradicts good morals”.[/vc_column_text][vc_single_image image=”113673″ img_size=”full” el_id=”Luxembourg”][vc_column_text]
Luxembourg
Defamation and slander remain criminal offences, punishable with imprisonment of between eight days and one year, along with a fine of up to €2,000. Under the criminal code, journalists and media outlets may be exempt from criminal liability, even if the published information was untrue, as long as they can prove that they acted in good faith and in the public interest, that the allegedly defamatory statement was made live, or that it is an accurate quote from a third party. In practice, criminal defamation prosecutions against the media are rare. When they do occur, courts tend to follow the case law of the ECtHR.
The Luxleaks case saw a journalist and two whistleblowers charged with domestic theft, violating professional confidentiality, violating business secrets and fraudulently accessing a database. While journalist Edouard Perrin was acquitted, the whistleblowers were convicted and received fines and suspended jail sentences.
According to Luxembourg’s Union of Journalists, legal threats against journalists are rarely followed by legal actions. Most action comes from international rather than domestic plaintiffs, with defamation and privacy laws most commonly used. The right to privacy is protected by the constitution, as is the right to the secrecy of correspondence.
Right of reply works through a registered letter that has to be sent in an “appropriate” timeframe to the media. The media has the right to comment on the reply text. It has recently been extended to online media.[/vc_column_text][vc_single_image image=”113675″ img_size=”full” el_id=”Malta”][vc_column_text]
Malta
Despite the decriminalisation of defamation in 2018, legal threats and actions remain a persistent and aggressive threat to journalists in Malta. What the European Parliament has called “serious shortcomings” in Malta’s rule of law intensify the climate of fear and intimidation facing the media.
Civil suits can be filed under the Media and Defamation Act in response to the publication of information that “seriously harms a person’s reputation”. Action may be brought against the individual journalist, the editor or the publisher. The act provides for certain defences, including a public interest defence. Up to €11,640 may be awarded in moral damages, in addition to actual damages. If the defendant published an “unreserved” correction or a reply from the plaintiff with the same importance as the original publication then the moral damages are capped at €5,000. In 2019, unpublished research by the Amsterdam International Law Clinic found that filing a separate claim for every sentence of an article (instead of grouping them into a single case) is a common tactic used to amplify the impact of a lawsuit.
Maltese journalists and media outlets have repeatedly received legal threats and lawsuits from abroad, especially from the UK and the USA, in apparent cases of libel tourism. Several public officials have been implicated in such cases. Efforts to prevent international lawsuits from being brought to bear on the media have so far been unsuccessful.
The Media and Defamation Act provides for anyone who has been misrepresented, been a victim of defamation or had his or her private life interrupted to submit a right to reply to contradict or explain the initial information. The media outlet must publish it within 48 hours of receiving it if it meets certain standards.[/vc_column_text][vc_single_image image=”113677″ img_size=”full” el_id=”Netherlands”][vc_column_text]
Netherlands
Defamation remains a criminal offence, punishable with fines, imprisonment and, in extreme cases, loss of civil rights. Higher penalties are applicable if defamation is committed against a public official or foreign head of state. In practice, journalists are rarely charged, much less convicted of criminal defamation.
According to research carried out by Tess van der Linden of Radboud University, although Dutch procedural law contains provisions that can limit access to legal proceedings if the law is being abused to damage another person, it is quite rare that cases are dismissed based on these grounds, since courts tend to examine the merits of the case nonetheless.
Action is usually brought as a tort under the civil code. Case law, including ECtHR case law, is instrumental in its application. In principle, the burden of proof is on the claimant, but in practice the defendant will also have to provide evidence that they acted in good faith. Public interest is not an absolute defence but, along with the factual underpinning of the published information, it is essential to the outcome.
Media lawyer Jens van den Brink says he has noticed an increase in data protection laws being used to try to prevent journalists from publishing their stories, but he says that the courts are resilient against the abuse of these laws.[/vc_column_text][vc_single_image image=”113679″ img_size=”full” el_id=”Norway”][vc_column_text]
Norway
Lawsuits against media outlets, editors and/or journalists in Norway usually relate to defamation, but sometimes also violation of privacy. Defamation is no longer a criminal offence and although violation of privacy continues to be criminalised, it is never used against the media.
Most claims are brought under the Compensation Act, which provides for compensation to be awarded in cases where an individual’s privacy, honour or reputation have been violated. In determining the liability of the journalist or media outlet, the veracity of the impugned statement is considered, as well as whether the statement was made in good faith. The Norwegian Union of Journalists has called for the act to protect journalists from being individually targeted, but its efforts have so far been unsuccessful. The balancing test between press freedom and the rights of the plaintiff, as developed in ECtHR case law, is fully adopted by Norwegian courts.
The Compensation Act provides for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages to be awarded. Compensation varies significantly but, according to media lawyers, journalists may expect to pay the equivalent of between €2,200 and €6,600 for non-pecuniary damages. Damages are set higher for media outlets – typically between €10,000 and €50,000. Media outlets usually cover their editors’ and journalists’ costs, including any damages they are ordered to pay.
Most people who have concerns about how they have been treated by the media tend to complain to the Norwegian Press Complaints Commission, the Norwegian Press Association’s self-regulatory commission. The commission has no power to award damages or impose fines: it reviews complaints and issues statements on whether or not there has been a breach the Norwegian Press Association’s code of ethics.[/vc_column_text][vc_single_image image=”113681″ img_size=”full” el_id=”Poland”][vc_column_text]
Poland
Investigative journalist Wojciech Cieśla believes that there’s been an increase in lawsuits against the media in the wake of the Law and Justice Party’s (PiS) rise to power in 2015. Jarosław Kurski, deputy editor-in-chief of Poland’s largest daily newspaper Gazeta Wyborcza, told the Committee to Protect Journalists last year that the PiS has been “flooding us with lawsuits”. The fact that these lawsuits have been mostly unsuccessful demonstrates that despite the challenges facing the judiciary, Polish courts have so far protected the media from such lawsuits.
Both civil and criminal law are used, by public officials as well as private companies and individuals, to target the media. Defamation is a criminal offence, punishable with fines, restriction of liberty and up to one year in prison. Higher penalties are applicable under certain conditions, including defamation of a head of state or the Polish nation. Defamation hearings are closed to the public unless the plaintiff requests otherwise. According to media lawyer Konrad Orlik, courts usually fine journalists convicted of defamation between €1,000 and €3,000. However, last year journalist Anna Wilk was given a three-year ban on working as a journalist. Although the ban was lifted in February 2020, she remains criminally convicted and had to the equivalent of about €1,600 in fines and to charity.
Legal action may also be filed under the civil code, which protects individuals’ personal interests – including dignity, image and privacy of correspondence. By law, anyone whose personal interests are threatened may demand that the actions be ceased and that compensation be paid. According to Orlik, although common courts take ECtHR decisions into consideration, Polish jurisprudence is considered superior in most cases.
The practice of “autoryzacja” – seeking the authorisation of interviewees’ quotes before publication – is widely practiced and provided for under the Press Law, although journalists may publish unauthorised quotes if the interviewee takes too long to reply or seeks to change the answers or add new information. The Press Law also provides for a right of reply to be sent to the editor-in-chief within 21 days and to be published free of charge.[/vc_column_text][vc_single_image image=”113683″ img_size=”full” el_id=”Portugal”][vc_column_text]
Portugal
Defamation, insult and false accusation are criminal offences, punishable with hefty fines and up to two years in prison. Stricter sanctions are applicable for defaming individuals in certain professions, including public officials, diplomats, the president or foreign heads of state. However, according to media lawyer Francisco Teixieira da Mota, due to the ECtHR’s repeated condemnation of Portugal for violating the right to freedom of expression through its use of criminal defamation, courts are not as receptive to criminal complaints as they once were, and convictions have greatly reduced.
Most lawsuits against the media are brought under the civil code, which provides broad protection to individual rights – particularly the right to a good name. A journalist who publishes factual information that is capable of damaging a legal or natural entity’s good name may be ordered to pay damages.
In their decisions, some courts have raised questions about the extent to which accepting ECtHR case law is constitutional in Portugal, given that the Portuguese constitution provides equal protection to freedom of expression and individuals’ right to a good name, reputation, and privacy. The constitution also protects an individual’s right to make corrections to publicly available information.[/vc_column_text][vc_single_image image=”113685″ img_size=”full” el_id=”Romania”][vc_column_text]
Romania
Although there have been proposals to recriminalise the act of insulting the state and its leaders, defamation is not currently a criminal offence. The criminal code may be used to bring legal action for violation of privacy, but the law provides for a number of circumstances, including public interest, in which disclosures do not constitute offences.
Lawsuits are brought against the media under the civil code, which protects the right to privacy, dignity and one’s image. The constitution stipulates that the civil responsibility of the published information rests with the publisher or director, the author and the owner. According to Active Watch Romania, some but not all court judgments take ECtHR’s jurisprudence into account. It has raised concerns that judgments in civil matters are inconsistent and unpredictable. Under the civil code, there is no limit on the moral damages that may be awarded, but under the audio-visual law, the maximum fine the media can be subject to is the equivalent of about €40,000.
Emergency gag orders – known as “presidential ordinances” – are also being used to silence journalists, with claimants seeking to force the removal of information and to prevent further information from being published. Significant financial penalties can begin to accumulate if the information is not promptly removed. A gag order against the Romanian Centre for Investigative Journalism in December 2018 came into effect in January 2019, and since 30 July 2019 it has been accruing fines at a rate of about €200 per day for not removing certain Football Leaks’ stories. The gag order was filed in parallel with a civil suit, which is still pending.
Meanwhile, data protection law has also been abused to intimidate journalists and to force them to reveal their sources. In 2018, the investigative news site RISE Project received a letter from the Data Protection Agency, threatening to fine it €20 million if it failed to reveal its sources for the personal data contained in a series of articles.
The constitution states that freedom of expression may not prejudice individuals’ dignity, honour, privacy or the right to their own image. It also protects the secrecy of correspondence.[/vc_column_text][vc_single_image image=”113687″ img_size=”full” el_id=”Slovakia”][vc_column_text]
Slovakia
Criminal defamation is punishable with up to two years imprisonment or, in extreme cases, up to eight years. Although complaints of criminal defamation were quite rare until recently, media lawyer Tomáš Langer says that they seem to be becoming increasingly common.
Most actions are taken under the civil code, which protects the individual’s personal rights, including honour, human dignity, privacy, name and expressions of a personal nature. The law provides for an individual to demand compensation, which is decided by the court while taking into account the seriousness of the harm and any unlawful interferences with the individual’s rights. Research published by the IPI in 2017 found that the compensation awarded in the majority of cases was €10,000 or less, although it may reach up to €20,000.
The time and costs associated with defending a lawsuit are a significant drain on media outlets, as it can take up to 10 years for a legal action to be concluded. Most lawsuits are filed against publications (rather than individual authors), but there are exceptions. Concerns have been raised in the past over the litigiousness of the Slovak judiciary, as well as the objectivity of their fellow judges given their frequent successes.
Data protection law has also been used to try to intimidate journalists, with the Slovak data protection authority sending a letter to the Czech Centre for Investigative Journalism threatening to impose a fine of up to €10 million if it did not disclose its sources.
The Slovak press code was amended last year to grant politicians the right to reply to media content when they allege their dignity, honour, or privacy to have been violated by false statements of facts. If a media outlet fails to publish a reply, it can be fined up to nearly €5,000. The code requires that a request for reply must be sent to the publisher before an action on publication of reply can be filed to the court. However, politicians often decide to immediately file a civil lawsuit on protection of personal rights without applying for a reply.[/vc_column_text][vc_single_image image=”113689″ img_size=”full” el_id=”Slovenia”][vc_column_text]
Slovenia
Insult, defamation, slander, calumny and malicious false accusation of crime are all criminal offences, punishable with a fine of up to two years in prison. In practice, journalists are usually subject to suspended sentences or fines. Misuse of personal information, publication of private documents (diaries, letters or other private writings), unwarranted audio recording and unjustified image recording are punishable with a fine or up to a year in prison.
Civil action is more commonly used against the media, however, with action usually being taken under the civil code. Compensation may be awarded in cases where there has been an infringement of a personal right. It provides for monetary compensation for defamation of reputation even if there has been no material damage. Future immaterial damage may also be taken into account. Damages awarded usually range from €5,000 to €20,000, but may be more in extreme cases. According to media lawyer Jasna Zakonjšek, almost every decision in the area of media law is based on ECtHR case law.
The right to reply, privacy of correspondence and the protection of personal data are all guaranteed under the Slovenian constitution. Under the Mass Media Act, the right to reply allows not only for the correction of factual errors but also for “other or contradictory facts and circumstances” to be published. The media must publish or broadcast the unamended response either within 48 hours of receipt or in the next issue or episode.[/vc_column_text][vc_single_image image=”113691″ img_size=”full” el_id=”Spain”][vc_column_text]
Spain
Both civil and criminal law are used to make legal threats and bring legal action against journalists in Spain. Criminal charges are filed against journalists for defamation and revelation of secrets, punishable with imprisonment of up to two and five years respectively. No journalists have been imprisoned on these charges in recent years, however. According to the IPI, vexatious criminal charges do reach the courts, but the majority of them are dismissed.
Civil defamation claims are brought under the 1982 Protection of Honour, Privacy and Right to a Respectful Image Law. There is no limit to the non-pecuniary damages that may be awarded. The 1982 law and the 1966 Press and Printing Law are referred to in a 2014 report by the Open Society Foundations as being “designed to protect any person who may feel offended by the truth”. Although the 1966 law has not been formally repealed, it has not been used since Spain’s transition to democracy in 1978.
According to media expert Joan Barata, the Constitutional and Supreme Courts’ case law – the most important reference for domestic courts – tends to align itself with that of the ECtHR, although there are exceptions, particularly regarding criminal cases. He says that case law from both courts has been becoming more closely aligned to ECtHR jurisprudence in recent years.
The right-of-reply process stipulates that anyone directly affected by publication of incorrect or damaging information may require the media outlet to publish a corrected version, without comment and with the same prominence as the original. Failure to comply can invoke court action to determine what sort of correction is appropriate. The right to honour, personal and family privacy and self-image are guaranteed by the constitution.[/vc_column_text][vc_single_image image=”113693″ img_size=”full” el_id=”Sweden”][vc_column_text]
Sweden
The Freedom of the Press Act, one of four fundamental laws that makes up the Swedish constitution, states that no one may be prosecuted, held liable under criminal law or held liable for damages on account of an offence other than as prescribed in the cases specified in that act. The offences listed in the act include carelessness with secret information, treason and defamation.
Defamation, aggravated defamation and insult are criminal offences, punishable with fines or up to two years in prison. If the defamatory statement is found to be true or justifiable, the defendant is not held responsible. Liability for an offence lies with the responsible editor at the time of publication. The Freedom of the Press Act also provides for private claims for damages to be pursued on the basis of those offences.
In practice, due to the extensive constitutional protections afforded to the media, it is rare for legal action to be brought against a news outlet, much less for the complaint to result in a conviction. Complaints are usually made to the Media Ombudsman or the Swedish Press and Broadcasting Authority.
There is no statutory right of reply, but it exists de facto as a result of established practice under the Freedom of the Press Act and the operation of the Media Ombudsman and the Swedish Council for Media Ethics. In case of a code breach, the council requires the media outlet to publish (or broadcast) its decision and to pay an administrative fee.[/vc_column_text][vc_single_image image=”113695″ img_size=”full” el_id=”United Kingdom”][vc_column_text]
United Kingdom
Legal threats and actions remain a serious threat to journalism throughout the UK, but the nature of the threats and actions differ significantly depending on the jurisdiction. Defamation is most commonly used; although it has been decriminalised throughout the UK, the law is not the same in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
England and Wales
In England and Wales, the Defamation Act 2013 has helped stem the flow of lawsuits by introducing a “serious harm” threshold and placing restrictions upon the types of cases that can be brought to court there. Although the act provides for truth and public interest defences, the burden of proof that is required from the publisher places an enormous, often impossible, burden on the media. The act provides that the author, editor or publisher may be liable for the offence.
A 2009 Reuters Institute report noted that “privacy actions have become the new libel”. Efforts are often made – sometimes successfully – to seek pre-publication injunctions under the Human Rights Act.
Although data protection provides certain protections for the media, it does not prevent individuals from filing subject access requests to news outlets, sometimes in an effort to intimidate journalists and prevent them from investigating the individual. Subject access requests can put a drain on small news outlets in particular. According to Pia Sarma, editorial legal director for Times Newspapers, data protection laws are now being used to protect reputation rather than personal data.
Scotland
In Scotland, defamation remains the most common route by which the media is legally challenged. According to the Scottish office of the National Union of Journalists, threats of legal action are far in excess of the actions being brought.
Defamation law is currently based mainly on common law, with some statutory provisions. A shortage of modern Scottish case law has resulted in Scottish courts and practitioners tending to follow decisions of the English courts and the ECtHR. A reform bill was introduced to the Scottish parliament in December 2019.
Northern Ireland
Defamation law, which is most commonly used to bring legal action against journalists in Northern Ireland, is determined by the Defamation Act 1955 and the Defamation Act 1996, alongside common law. Privacy law is also used, albeit less frequently. Northern Ireland judges have in the past cited public interest as a defence for the curtailment of the right to privacy.
According to media lawyer Olivia O’Kane, alleged terrorists have used libel and privacy actions in an effort to silence investigative journalists. Although their efforts have been unsuccessful, the battles have been “extremely costly and time-consuming”. In 2013, the then editor of the Belfast Telegraph was quoted in the House of Lords as having said that “I have edited newspapers in every country of the United Kingdom and the time and money now needed to fight off vexatious legal claims against us here is the highest I have ever experienced”.[/vc_column_text][vc_single_image image=”113700″ img_size=”full” el_id=”Annexes”][vc_column_text]
Annexes
Further reading
Defamation and Insult Laws in the OSCE Region: A Comparative Study: www.osce.org/fom/303181?download=true
Media Laws Database: http://legaldb.freemedia.at/
Freedom of Expression, Media Law and Defamation: www.mediadefence.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/MLDI.IPI%20defamation%20manual.English.pdf
Media Pluralism Monitor: https://cmpf.eui.eu/media-pluralism-monitor/
Glossary
CEPEJ European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice
ECtHR European Court of Human Rights
GDPR General Data Protection Regulation
IPI International Press Institute
OSCE Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe
SLAPP Strategic lawsuit against public participation
Right to reply (right to correction) The right to reply to or to defend oneself against public criticism in the same way in which the original criticism was published or broadcast. In some countries it is a legal or constitutional right, in other countries it is practised but not codified. In theory, the provision of a right to reply should help to prevent lawsuits from being brought against journalists and media outlets
Non-pecuniary Not consisting of money
Pecuniary Consisting of money
Tort A civil wrong (other than a breach of contract) causing harm for which compensation may be obtained in the form of damages or an injunction
Acknowledgements
Index on Censorship would like to thank the following lawyers, media experts and association representatives for their contributions and feedback:
Vesna Alaburić, Croatian lawyer; Joan Barata, media law expert; Paško Bilić, Institute for Development and International Relations (Croatia); Linda Bīriņa, Latvian lawyer; Seweryn Blumsztajn and Krzysztof Bobinski, Society of Journalists (Poland); Justin Borg Barthet, University of Aberdeen; Bea Bodrogi, Hungarian lawyer; Vibeke Borberg, Danish lawyer; Linde Bryk, Amsterdam Law Clinics; Tove Carlen, Swedish Union of Journalists; Helena Chaloupková, Czech lawyer; Maria Cheresheva, AEJ-Bulgaria; Luc Caregari, Luxembourg Union of Journalists; Pol Deltour and Charlotte Michils, Flemish/Belgian Association of Journalists; Danka Derifaj and Hrvoje Zovko, Croatian Association of Journalists; Zsuzsa Detrekői, Hungarian lawyer; Palatics Edit, Hungarian lawyer; Achilles Emilianides, University of Nicosia; Kristine Foss, Norwegian Press Association; Liana Ganea, ActiveWatch Romania; Kalia Georgiou, Cypriot lawyer; Ralph Oliver Graef, German lawyer; Jan Hegemann, German lawyer; Charlie Holt, Greenpeace International; William Horsley, Centre for Freedom of the Media (UK); Theo Jordahl, Norwegian lawyer; Michael Kealey, Irish lawyer; Sarah Kieran, Irish Lawyer; Michal Klima, Czech branch of the IPI; Päivi Korpisaari, University of Helsinki; Yannis Kotsifos, ESIEMTH (Greece); Tomáš Langer, Slovak lawyer; Ann-Marie Lenihan, NewsBrands Ireland; Andrea Martin, Irish lawyer; Estelle Massé, Access Now; Roger Mann, German lawyer; Stratis Mavraganis, Greek lawyer; Tarlach McGonagle, Leiden Law School; Nick McGowan-Lowe, NUJ Scotland; Ingrida Milkaitė, Ghent University; Daniel Moßbrucker, University of Hamburg; Nicola Namdjou, Global Witness; Antonella Napoli, Articolo 21; Tomáš Němeček, Czech lawyer; Ants Nomper, Estonian lawyer; Nelly Ognyanova, Sofia University; Olivia O’Kane, Northern Ireland lawyer; Konrad Orlik, Polish lawyer; Gill Phillips, The Guardian News and Media; George Pleios, University of Athens; Pia Sarma, Times Newspapers; Konrad Siemaszko, Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights (Poland); Andrej Školkay, The School of Communication and Media; Alberto Spampinato, Ossigeno per l’Informazione; Ivana Stigleitner Gotovac, Croatian lawyer; Francisco Teixieira da Mota, Portuguese lawyer; Helle Tiikmaa, Estonian Association of Journalists; Emmanuel Tordjman, French lawyer; Karmen Turk, Estonian lawyer; Paola Rosà, OBCT (Italy); Dori Ralli, ESIEA (Greece); Jens van den Brink, Dutch lawyer; Tess van der Linden, Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen; Caro Van Wichelen, Belgian lawyer; Giulio Vasaturo, Sapienza University of Rome; Dirk Voorhoof, media law expert; Jon Wessel-Aas, Norwegian lawyer; Jasna Zakonjšek, Slovenian lawyer.
Photo credits
Chip Somodevilla/Getty (main image), fcangia (Austria), Reine-Marie Grard (Belgium), Jim Black (Bulgaria), Ivan Ivankovic (Croatia), Dimitris Vetsikas (Cyprus), Markéta Machová (Czech Republic), Thomas Wolter (Denmark), NolensVolens (Estonia), Tapio Haaja (Finland), Walkerssk (France), Peggy und Marco Lachmann-Anke (Germany), Panagiotis Lianos (Greece), Alexey Mikhaylov (Hungary), Larahcv (Ireland), Nikolaus Bader (Latvia), Evgeni Tcherkasski (Lithuania), Pit Karges (Luxembourg), Sofia Arkestål (Malta), Николай Начев (Netherlands), André Neufeld (Norway), Rudy and Peter Skitterians (Poland), Granito (Portugal), Arvid Olson (Romania), Momentmal (Slovakia), Vilva Roosioks (Slovenia), cerqueiraricardo (Spain), Ioannis Ioannidis (Sweden), luxstorm (UK)[/vc_column_text][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/4″][vc_single_image image=”113711″ img_size=”full” onclick=”custom_link” link=”https://postkodstiftelsen.se/en/”][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”3/4″][vc_column_text]This report has been supported by the Swedish Postcode Foundation. The foundation is a beneficiary to the Swedish Postcode Lottery and provides support to projects that foster positive social impact or search for long-term solutions to global challenges. Since 2007, the foundation has distributed over 1.5 billion SEK in support of more than 600 projects in Sweden and internationally.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/4″][vc_widget_sidebar sidebar_id=”smartslider_area_1″][vc_widget_sidebar sidebar_id=”smartslider_area_1″][vc_widget_sidebar sidebar_id=”smartslider_area_1″][vc_widget_sidebar sidebar_id=”smartslider_area_1″][vc_widget_sidebar sidebar_id=”smartslider_area_1″][vc_widget_sidebar sidebar_id=”smartslider_area_1″][vc_widget_sidebar sidebar_id=”smartslider_area_1″][vc_widget_sidebar sidebar_id=”smartslider_area_1″][vc_widget_sidebar sidebar_id=”smartslider_area_1″][vc_widget_sidebar sidebar_id=”smartslider_area_1″][vc_widget_sidebar sidebar_id=”smartslider_area_1″][vc_widget_sidebar sidebar_id=”smartslider_area_1″][vc_widget_sidebar sidebar_id=”smartslider_area_1″][vc_widget_sidebar sidebar_id=”smartslider_area_1″][vc_widget_sidebar sidebar_id=”smartslider_area_1″][vc_widget_sidebar sidebar_id=”smartslider_area_1″][vc_widget_sidebar sidebar_id=”smartslider_area_1″][vc_widget_sidebar sidebar_id=”smartslider_area_1″][vc_widget_sidebar sidebar_id=”smartslider_area_1″][vc_widget_sidebar sidebar_id=”smartslider_area_1″][vc_widget_sidebar sidebar_id=”smartslider_area_1″][vc_widget_sidebar sidebar_id=”smartslider_area_1″][vc_widget_sidebar sidebar_id=”smartslider_area_1″][vc_widget_sidebar sidebar_id=”smartslider_area_1″][vc_widget_sidebar sidebar_id=”smartslider_area_1″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
01 Nov 18
[vc_row full_width=”stretch_row_content_no_spaces” full_height=”yes” css=”.vc_custom_1541435907815{background-image: url(https://mappingmediafreedom.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/MMF-overview-1460×490.jpg?id=100814) !important;background-position: center !important;background-repeat: no-repeat !important;background-size: cover !important;}”][vc_column][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Demonising the media: Threats to journalists in Europe” font_container=”tag:h1|text_align:left” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_custom_heading text=”Burned in effigy. Insulted. Menaced. Spat at. Discredited by their nation’s leaders. Assaulted. Sued. Homes strafed with automatic weapons. Rape threats. Death threats. Assassinations.” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_column_text]
This is the landscape faced by journalists throughout Europe over the past four years.
Mapping Media Freedom has documented media freedom incidents across Europe — over 3,000 were surveyed for this report — since May 2014. The information gathered shows journalists and media outlets targeted in a kaleidoscopic array by political leaders, businesses and the general public – but some key trends have emerged from the reports recorded and verified by the platform. This document outlines some of these, and is intended as a survey of the landscape for media freedom in the region to aid lawmakers and those who wish to help an independent, pluralistic media landscape to flourish.
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Key trends” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_custom_heading text=”Five issues that have been identified from the reports submitted to Mapping Media Freedom” font_container=”tag:h3|text_align:left” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_column_text]
National Security and Counter-terrorism Legislation
Well-intentioned legislation that aims to protect the citizens and institutions of a country is, in the best-case scenario, often blind to journalism in the public interest. In the worst-case scenario, such laws are used deliberately to prevent the dissemination of information that is in the public interest. In 39 cases, reporters have been targeted for prosecution for publishing embarrassing leaked information that governments have asserted was not meant for public discussion. This is an acute issue that often involves the judicial and extrajudicial surveillance of journalists in an effort to ferret out the identities of whistleblowers.
Political Interference
This report identifies two key trends within this category. The first is direct interference in the operations of media outlets, either by politicians requesting editors or others involved in the production of news to alter or halt a story, or by replacing journalists critical of a particular political party or policy with ones more favourable to those in power.
Political interference has come from across the spectrum – from Podemos in Spain to the Front National in France, from Fidesz in Hungary to Labour and the Scottish National Party in the United Kingdom. The methods can take many forms, sometimes subtle (behind-the-scenes phone calls to an editor), sometimes overt (preventing a journalist affiliated with particular outlets from attending a press conference) – but the goal of controlling information flow remains the same.
The second form of interference is potentially more insidious: attempts to discredit media outlets by smearing journalists, news outlets, and in some cases an entire industry in order to sow doubt about the veracity of their reporting. This is having a damaging effect, particularly on the safety of journalists, who increasingly are seen as “fair game” by the broader public and subjected to both verbal and physical threats.
Social Media/Online Harassment
Social media has provided journalists with a wide avenue to share their information and interact with readers in a public yet intimate way. This has helped media professionals in reporting and allowed for constructive debates around current events, and can help improve the quality of information available to citizens overall. However, the other side of that bargain is the growing hostility toward journalists online. This takes many forms, from tweets of sexual harassment to death threats made via Facebook. This is a widespread and pernicious issue that journalists across the continent confront on a daily basis, and is fomented by the widely reported remarks of some politicians from member states. Women are most frequently the target of such attacks.
Protests
Journalists also face a number of risks offline. When protesters pour into the streets, journalists are necessarily among the first responders – an essential part of their professional duties. Traditionally present at demonstrations to document and interpret events, media workers – whether freelance or staff – are also among the first to be corralled, targeted and injured. A number of incidents documented at protests – as recorded by the Mapping Media Freedom project – provide insight into the multidimensional threats that journalists confront when called upon to report from the scene of demonstrations, whether small or large. These include a lack of understanding among some police forces about the role of media at such events.
Public Television
A significant but underreported trend during the period was the threat to public broadcasters. A number of national broadcasters were brought under closer government control. Taken together, these reports outline the importance of maintaining the editorial independence of these vital public services.
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”About Mapping Media Freedom” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_custom_heading text=”Monitoring violations against media professionals” font_container=”tag:h3|text_align:left” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/4″][vc_icon icon_fontawesome=”fa fa-angle-double-right” color=”black” size=”xl” align=”right”][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”3/4″][vc_column_text]
Driven by Index on Censorship’s decades-long experience in monitoring censorship across the globe, Mapping Media Freedom set out to record the widest possible array of press freedom violations.
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_column_text]
Mapping Media Freedom is a project, funded by the European Commission, to investigate the full spectrum of threats to media freedom in the region – from the seemingly innocuous to the most serious infractions – in a near-real-time system that launched to the public on 24 May 2014.
Driven by Index on Censorship’s decades-long experience in monitoring censorship across the globe, Mapping Media Freedom set out to record the widest possible array of press freedom violations in an effort to understand the precursors to the retreat of media freedom in a country. The ambitious scope of the project called for a flexible methodology that draws on a network of regional correspondents, partner organisations and media sources.
Mapping Media Freedom defines a media worker as anyone partaking in the gathering, assessing, creating and presenting of news and information.
How It Works
Submitted reports are fact-checked against news outlets and through discussions with the submitting correspondent. Reports are then published to a public-facing website for use by researchers, journalists and policymakers. The outputs are available to the wider public through downloadable CSV files from the database and are shared widely on social media. The project has issued periodic reports that summarised data on a quarterly and yearly basis. This document is the result of a full review of the data reported to and verified by the project’s contributors covering 35 countries.
Each report is flagged against seven main categories and 64 subcategories to provide a sortable and searchable database of the types of press freedom violations taking place in a country. EU-affiliated countries are further categorised by their status: member states, candidates and potential candidates. Full descriptions of the categories and subcategories are available in the Mapping Media Freedom methodology section of this document.
Going beyond traditional statistical recording, Mapping Media Freedom’s correspondents write short narrative reports about the incidents. The goal is to recount the facts dispassionately, without bias toward the journalist or media outlet. Where possible, the incident is placed in the context of wider trends within the locality, whether a city or national media market. All reports for the 35 countries covered in this report are published in English and edited by project staff based at Index on Censorship.
The platform records incidents at the local and national levels. In addition to the categorisation, this geographic spread aims to provide for the first time the fullest possible awareness of the state of play for journalists away from a country’s largest media markets, where most well-publicised press freedom violations occur.
Because Mapping Media Freedom relies primarily on inputs from a concentrated group of part-time correspondents, it cannot record every violation of press freedom in the countries covered. Further, if incidents are not reported in the media, addressed by unions or self-reported by journalists on social media, there is no way for the database to register that the incident occurred.
Because of its focus on narrative, the platform allows for the retrospective interrogation of reports against new criteria as its methodology evolves, and as the database recorded an ever-larger pool of information new categories were added. For example, EU-related and “whistleblowing” flags were appended in late 2015, and a “commercial interference” flag was added in spring 2018. In a manual process, each new flag is tested against all the reports on the platform, providing researchers with insights into incidents that have occurred since 2014.
The methodology aims to be as succinct as possible, and directs submitters to flag the most appropriate subcategories that apply to the Limitation to Media Freedom category. As a result, reported incidents can appear – legitimately – in simultaneous subcategories across the project. For example, a journalist’s car or home could be firebombed after they have published a series of articles about corruption in the local administration. This report could be listed as a “Limitation to Media Freedom”, subcategories “Attack to Property” and “Intimidation”, depending on the facts of the incident. At the same time, reports are keyworded and mapped to appear geographically on the map and through the platform’s search functionalities.
Mapping Media Freedom covers all media workers, whether they work for state-backed news outlets, those funded by supporters of opposition parties or non-partisan media providers. In all instances, the reports documented are rigorously fact-checked by an independent editorial team working at Index on Censorship.
The Software
The Mapping Media Freedom map and database rest on a modified version of the Ushahidi platform, which was developed to track election violence in the wake of Kenya’s disputed 2008 presidential poll. The platform is now in its third iteration; Mapping Media Freedom uses the map as its primary visualisation of the data and offers targeted search functionality at mappingmediafreedom.org to help users navigate to the data they are seeking. [/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”European media freedom” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_custom_heading text=”Key themes 2014-18″ font_container=”tag:h3|text_align:left” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/4″][vc_icon icon_fontawesome=”fa fa-angle-double-right” color=”black” size=”xl” align=”right”][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”3/4″][vc_column_text]
As security – rather than the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms – becomes the number-one priority of governments worldwide, broadly written security laws have been twisted to silence journalists.
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_column_text]
National Security Legislation
In October 2017, a reporter for The Wall Street Journal was convicted of producing “terrorist propaganda” in Turkey and sentenced to more than two years in prison.
Ayla Albayrak was charged over an August 2015 article in the newspaper, which detailed government efforts to quell unrest among the nation’s Kurdish separatists, “firing tear gas and live rounds in a bid to reassert control of several neighbourhoods”.
Albayrak was in New York at the time the ruling was announced and was sentenced in absentia, but her conviction forms part of a growing pattern of arrests, detentions, trials and convictions for journalists under national security laws – not just in EU candidate country Turkey, the world’s top jailer of journalists.
As security – rather than the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms – becomes the number-one priority of governments worldwide, broadly written security laws have been twisted to silence journalists.
It is seen starkly in the 272 cases that Mapping Media Freedom has logged and verified from countries affiliated with the EU. This includes everything from the alleged glorification of terrorism in Spain to the hundreds of journalists jailed in Turkey following the failed coup to the seizure of a BBC journalist’s laptop in the United Kingdom.
This abusive phenomenon started small, as in the case of Turkey, where dismissive official rhetoric was aimed at small segments – like Kurdish journalists – among the country’s press corps, but over time expanded to extinguish whole newspapers or television networks that espoused critical viewpoints on government policy.
While Turkey has been an especially egregious example of the cynical and political exploitation of terror offences, the trend toward the criminalisation of journalism that makes governments uncomfortable is spreading.
In Spain, the police association filed a lawsuit against Mònica Terribas, a journalist for Catalunya Ràdio, accusing her of “favouring actions against public order for calling on citizens in the Catalonia region to report on police movements during the referendum on independence”. The association said information on police movements could help terrorists, drug dealers and other criminals.
In Turkey, reporting deemed critical of the government, the president or their associates is being equated with terrorism – as seen in the case of German journalist Deniz Yücel, who was detained in February 2017.
Yücel, a Turkish-German dual national, was working as a correspondent for the German newspaper Die Welt. He was arrested after he was summoned to a police station for questioning about a report he wrote about the Turkish energy minister. He was accused of sedition and using “terrorist propaganda to incite the population”. He was eventually released after a year in detention.
There are also multiple examples of Turkey using Interpol arrest warrants against exiled journalists like Can Dündar, whose extradition from Germany it demanded, and Hamza Yalçın, who was detained by Spanish authorities, though both of those countries declined to enforce the requests.
And governments are also using terror laws to spy on journalists. In 2014, the UK police admitted that it used powers under terror legislation to obtain the phone records of Tom Newton Dunn, political editor of The Sun newspaper, to investigate the source of a leak in a political scandal. Police used powers under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, which circumvents another law that requires police to have approval from a judge to get disclosure of journalistic material. In September 2018, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the UK’s mass surveillance regime violated human rights.
Even jokes can land journalists in trouble under terror laws. French police searched the office of community station Radio Canut in Lyon and seized the recording of a radio programme after two presenters were accused of “incitement to terrorism”. The presenters had been talking about the protests by police officers which had recently been taking place in France. One presenter said: “This is a call to people who killed themselves or are feeling suicidal, and to all kamikazes, [to] blow themselves up in the middle of the crowd.” One of the presenters was put under judicial supervision and forbidden to host the radio programme until he appeared in court.
The misuse and abuse of national security legislation to identify government critics, or silence critical media, is of growing concern. EU governments in particular need to be mindful that loosely drafted national security laws are often copied by far more restrictive regimes to support their repression of critical media.[/vc_column_text][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/4″][vc_icon icon_fontawesome=”fa fa-angle-double-right” color=”black” size=”xl” align=”right”][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”3/4″][vc_column_text]
All too often, politicians and business interests are short-circuiting the public’s right to information by placing their personal or party agendas ahead of the public good.
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_column_text]
Political Interference
Direct Interference
A journalist working for a country’s public broadcaster produces a report that points out that a high-level politician’s family could potentially gain from a government investment. The politician sends a series of emails attacking the journalist for publishing false information and accusing them of acting unprofessionally. The journalist resigns, saying that further research into the conflict of interest is being prevented by their employer.
These events took place in Finland in November 2016. The country’s prime minister, Juha Sipilä, sent emails to Yle journalist Salla Vuorikoski after she wrote articles about a deal involving public money, a state-owned mining firm and another firm linked to the prime minister’s family. Nearly three weeks later, in December 2016, Vuorikoski stepped down, and fellow Yle senior reporter Jussi Eronen resigned citing pressure to act in contradiction of his journalistic ideals. Sipilä, who had handed control of his business interests to his children several years earlier, was ultimately cleared of any wrongdoing by the country’s parliamentary ombudsman.
Several months later, in March 2017, the political party The Finns, which was supporting Sipilä’s government in the Finnish parliament, proposed altering the governing structure of Yle, limiting its independence. At the time, the party’s opposition to multiculturalism was cited as the motive for the proposal.
While these two distinct events – the original reportage and the later push to amend Yle’s governance – may be unconnected, the appearance of political manoeuvring raises serious implications for press freedom, and highlights how journalists can come under pressure from politicians even in a country widely regarded as having some of the highest levels of media freedom worldwide.
In an ideal media environment, ethical journalists would be free to investigate and independently reveal the information that they had found, without retribution or pressurisation by political or business interests. Even the member states of the EU are not ideal environments. All too often, politicians and business interests are short-circuiting the public’s right to information by placing their personal or party agendas ahead of the public good.
Since the election of Emmanuel Macron as French president, several members of the government have tried to control coverage by calling editorial offices, by asking journalists not to criticise the government, write about the ruling party’s finances or explore allegations of corruption, or even by threatening legal action when information which was embarrassing for the government was leaked.
Other forms of interference include lawsuits, such as the 47 lawsuits being brought against investigative journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia at the time of her murder in Malta in 2017, as well as libel cases in countries such as Spain and Greece. The use of litigation to intimidate journalists is a serious concern and an area that Index on Censorship will be focusing on in 2019.
In the United Kingdom and France, journalists may be locked in side rooms or barred from attending conferences – an all-too-common occurrence across the continent, as Mapping Media Freedom’s “Blocked Access” subcategory shows.
The purchase or takeover of previously independent or critical media outlets by government supporters, or the abuse of the media licensing system is another form of interference. In Hungary, business interests aligned with the governing party have bought up media outlets and turned them from critical to pro-government outlets overnight, and popular radio stations have lost their licences against a backdrop of diminishing media plurality. In candidate country Serbia, when a tax inspection fails to find any impropriety at a media outlet, another is ordered, then another, then another. In Poland, a network was nearly fined for reporting on protests that were sparked by opposition to reporting restrictions in parliament.
Targeting the media financially is a well-trodden route for penalising critical outlets. On 6 July 2017 the offices of Rise Project, a Romanian investigative outlet, were raided by tax inspectors. Many believe the timing of the raid was chosen to intimidate the outlet, as Rise Project had previously announced that they would publish an important story on 6 July. The investigation alleged that Liviu Dragnea, the president of the governing Social Democratic Party, had exerted control over the Romanian secret services.
On 28 January 2018, a confidential report by the Romanian Tax Authority on the activity of Rise Project, containing its sources of income as well as the list of its paid collaborators and projects, was leaked to the press. The report was used in a smear campaign against the organisation.
Other forms of direct interference include intervening in the appointment of staff at state media operators, as outlined in section on Public Broadcasting.[/vc_column_text][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/4″][vc_icon icon_fontawesome=”fa fa-angle-double-right” color=”black” size=”xl” align=”right”][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”3/4″][vc_column_text]
The willingness to smear journalists or the outlets they report for, rather than debate the facts, in order to warp the public’s right to information is the true threat to media freedom in the EU.
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”2/3″][vc_column_text]Demonising the Media
The willingness to smear journalists or the outlets they report for, rather than debate the facts, in order to warp the public’s right to information is the true threat to media freedom in the EU, its candidate countries and potential candidate countries. This fraught situation is occurring in countries at the heart of the EU, but it is even more pronounced in countries on its fringes, where robust checks and balances are absent in practice, and the independent media are anaemic due to shrivelling advertising budgets – or, worse, dependent on government largesse for large portions of their financing.
Leading political figures in countries from the UK to Hungary have smeared journalists and media outlets critical of them, dismissing their reports as “fake news”; they have thus created an environment in which reporters are demonised, and thereby more vulnerable to abuse online and off.
In Romania, journalists are publicly chastised for “promoting” protests against government policies. In Italy, journalists have been threatened with having their police protection removed.
In November 2016, during a press conference, Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico called journalists dirty, anti-Slovak prostitutes, and before that he did not hesitate to call journalists “toilet spiders” or “slimy snakes”. In August 2017, during a press conference, Fico accused a reporter of being “controlled by the opposition”.
In Serbia, where President Aleksandar Vučić is a dominant presence on TV channels, he regularly humiliates journalists at press conferences. They are often shouted at, threatened and targeted: in some cases, journalists who Vučić mentioned by name in a negative context later receive death threats online.
Stevan Dojčinović, the editor-in-chief of KRIK, a media organisation which investigates crime and corruption, has been attacked and smeared numerous times by pro-government tabloids after reporting about the private property of politicians. Dojčinović and KRIK have been sued by Nenad Popović, a minister in the current Serbian government, after reporting on his offshore companies which appeared in the Paradise Papers data leak.
“If you are targeted, put on the front page or at the central headlines in the evening news, and accused of being a traitor, political activist, non-balanced or simply a thief – you are automatically forced to defend yourself, if not publicly, then at least in your nearest surrounding,” journalist Tamara Skrozza told Mapping Media Freedom. Skrozza was described as an “enemy of the state and President Vučić” by a pro-government TV station earlier this year, and describes the result of such smears: “Your family is in danger, your privacy is attacked and you are not able to lead a normal life. This, of course, causes a lot of stress and damages your health for a long time.”
None of this should be taken as an advocation of a position that holds that journalists and journalism should be free of critique. But the quality of the debate needs to be constructive, factual and professional. Burning a journalist in effigy, as happened twice in Croatia, does not contribute to the overall quality of information available to Croatians.
A culture of impunity is also exacerbating these problems. Investigative journalists are under particular pressure in the region: three journalists have been killed in the EU since October 2017.
These cases have received a great deal of attention internationally. However, other examples of impunity abound. In Croatia, a threatening comment was left on the Facebook page of independent and critical news website Index.hr: “These Index.hr journalists should be killed … because they undermine and damage everything that is Croatian.”
The poster was quickly identified and indicted, but legal authorities dropped the charges because, among other extenuating circumstances, he was a “highly decorated Croatian war veteran”. The Croatian Journalists’ Association (HND) condemned the decision, describing it as “scandalous”.
Ema Tarabochia, a researcher for a regional project on media freedom and the safety of journalists, said that the corrosive influence of hate speech on Croatian society in recent years has been very strong. “Even though there are no extremist parties in parliament, public space is poisoned by daily verbal attacks,” Tarabochia said. She said that evidence shows that journalists working for independent, commercial and nonprofit media, who are labelled as “leftist journalists”, are at a higher risk of suffering minor injuries and death threats. This pattern is repeated in a number of countries covered by the map.
“They are threatened or attacked out of ideological or ethnical reasons,” Tarabochia said, adding that there are still no verdicts in two cases in which members of a far-right party, Autochthonous Croatian Party of Right (A-HSP), burned copies of Novosti, the Serbian-language minority newspaper. The campaign, led by far-right political parties and conservative civil associations, reached fever pitch in September 2017 and was followed by numerous verbal threats to Novosti journalists.
“Lack of public rebuke from the centres of power, especially the political one, are encouraging the perpetrators,” Tarabochia said, adding that condemnation “would be a clear message to the perpetrators that such behaviour will not be tolerated”.
Moreover, an absence of reports should not be taken as evidence that the press freedom environment is healthy in such countries. With just 10 reports verified by Mapping Media Freedom during the time period covered here, Finland is the among the member countries with the fewest reports. Yet if the country’s prime minister is willing to pressurise a journalist, it should be assumed that only the most egregious examples of press freedom violations are being discussed in the public arena. A number of member states with smaller populations – Finland, Denmark, Ireland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania – have few reports, but this may be something of a false flag. Other factors – such as societal and professional pressures – may be interfering with the discussion of incidents.
The pressures placed on journalists as part of this widespread political interference also lead to self-censorship on the part of the individual, and lessen the appetite for risky investigative journalism on the part of news outlets; this was cited as the reason for the resignations in the Yle cases.
Reporting incidents of censorship – including self-censorship – is vital to building an accurate picture of the state of media freedom in the region; we would urge journalists’ unions and media outlets to continue to report incidents widely, and confidentially if necessary.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_column_text]
Blocked Access
Informal blacklists of media outlets. Exorbitant fees for access to public information. Restrictions on reporting from parliament and refugee camps. Journalists prohibited from asking questions at – or barred outright from – press conferences.
These Hungarian incidents, which were among the 545 cases of blocked access that were verified in the 35 EU-affiliated countries covered in this report, are all too often a fact of life for journalists. When journalists are prevented from reporting on an event – whether it be the opening of a pig farm or a press conference or a protest – the public’s right to information is damaged.
In the Hungarian context, preventing journalists from reporting comes in a variety of forms, from chasing them with a piece of construction equipment to preventing their investigation of a leak at a garbage dump to placing restrictions on where and how they can report in parliament. News outlets were barred from the Fidesz election centre. At the height of the government’s feud with television network RTL Klub, it was prevented from covering the opening of a new football stadium – as well as targeted with a punitive tax on its profits.
The Fidesz government’s shifting war with the media has seen journalists from outlets owned by business interests on the outs with the country’s prime minister repeatedly blocked from attending party events. In February 2018, yet more restrictions were placed on journalists, limiting members of the press to a 10-metre-long hall in parliament. During the period covered here, Mapping Media Freedom recorded seven incidents that highlight the limiting of the right to report from the seat of government power. Further restrictions on the press in the halls of power have arisen in Poland, the Netherlands and Germany.
At the height of the refugee crisis, Hungary repeatedly denied journalists the ability to access camps housing the migrants. An AP journalist was compelled to delete footage that showed police unleashing a dog on migrants crossing the border from Serbia. Police issued a letter forbidding journalists from approaching “illegal immigrants” to ask questions. In another incident, police declared a train station an “operational zone” and pushed journalists out. One journalist tweeted that the refugees said: “Do not leave us.” The journalist accused the Hungarian authorities of trying not to let the world see what they were doing. Similar restrictions have been placed on journalists at the Greek border.
Among the candidate countries, half of Turkey’s 103 incidents of blocked access reviewed for this report took place before the July 2016 coup attempt. Police and the government have placed an array of restrictions on reporters, from curfews near to the Syrian border to deportation orders and the well-documented trials of journalists taking place in the country.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/4″][vc_icon icon_fontawesome=”fa fa-angle-double-right” color=”black” size=”xl” align=”right”][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”3/4″][vc_column_text]
The immediacy and near-anonymity of social media allow journalists to connect with a huge audience, but leave them open to insult and derision.
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_column_text]
Online Harassment
In December 2016, an anonymous Twitter user posted a private photo of journalist Vonny Moyes, a writer for Scottish newspaper The National, to shame her. Moyes said that she was targeted because she had written for pro-independence outlets and drawn the attention of pro-union trolls. When a particular column was commented on by leading UK conservatives, Moyes said this acted as an amplifier and exposed her to more direct harassment than usual.
The individual who ultimately sought out and posted the nude images of the journalist had trolled her over earlier articles. When the photos appeared on Twitter, Moyes asked the user to remove them and told the troll she would be contacting the police. She asked her followers to report the user to Twitter, which they did. The user deleted their account soon after.
“I then tweeted for the rest of the evening about the issue in order to deconstruct the victim-blaming and sex-shaming narrative, to essentially take back the perceived power the troll believed they had,” Moyes told Mapping Media Freedom of the incident.
In August 2014, Amberin Zaman, a Turkish journalist who was then the Turkey correspondent for The Economist, was singled out by the country’s president, who said to her: “Know your place.” In November 2014, a Twitter user wrote that she would be cut in half for writing about Isis, and she was told by a western embassy to avoid travelling to the Syrian border. Later, Zaman’s press card was revoked for her critical – tweeted – opinions about the Turkish government. In each of these situations, Zaman faced an onslaught of threats via social media.
Foreign correspondents in Turkey have also come under pressure, with one saying he had to leave the country upon receiving thousands of threatening comments after his reporting on the Soma mine disaster.
The immediacy and near-anonymity of social media allow journalists to connect with a huge audience, but leave them open to insult and derision. The online harassment incidents reported to Mapping Media Freedom from the countries covered here include a litany of death, rape and fake news accusations from members of the public and politicians.
In the 117 cases of online harassment reviewed here, the largest number of reports among EU countries came from Croatia with 16. It was followed by Italy (9), Spain (9), the UK (8) and France (5). In candidate and potential candidate countries, the highest number of incidents was logged as originating in Bosnia and Herzegovina with 16. It was followed by Serbia (9), the Republic of Macedonia (5), Kosovo (4) and Turkey (4).
Other studies undertaken into the level of harassment faced by journalists, particularly female journalists online, suggest the number of cases reported to Mapping Media Freedom vastly underestimates the extent of the problem. We welcome the attention that bodies such as UNESCO and the OSCE have brought to this issue.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/4″][vc_icon icon_fontawesome=”fa fa-angle-double-right” color=”black” size=”xl” align=”right”][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”3/4″][vc_column_text]
Traditionally present at demonstrations to document and interpret events, media workers – whether freelance or staff – are also among the first to be corralled, targeted and injured.
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_column_text]
Protests
When protesters pour into the streets, journalists are necessarily among the first responders; this is an essential part of their professional duties. Traditionally present at demonstrations to document and reflect, media workers – whether freelance or staff – are also among the first to be corralled, targeted and injured.
A number of incidents happening at protests – as recorded by the Mapping Media Freedom project – have provided an insight into the various threats that journalists confront when called upon to report from the scenes of demonstrations, whether small or large.
Against a backdrop of nationalism, xenophobia, economic insecurity and anti-government sentiment, reporters have been indirectly targeted by demonstrators, counter demonstrators and police.
This report examined 191 verified cases from the 35 countries affiliated with the EU – 28 member states, 5 candidates for entry and 2 potential candidates for entry. There were 46 incidents in France, 31 in Spain, 27 in Germany and 14 in Romania.
The numbers reflect only what was reported to and verified by Mapping Media Freedom. We have repeatedly found during the project that journalists underreport incidents they see as too minor, commonplace or part of the job, or where they fear reprisals from organised groups or law enforcement. In some cases, project correspondents have identified incidents retrospectively as a result of offhand comments on social media networks or media reports appearing only after a similar incident has come to light.
Contexts vary, but journalists face risks originating with both protesters and police, and as a result of finding themselves stuck between protesters and police (or various groups of protesters). However, more than half the incidents (13 out of 25) reported in the first seven months of 2018 involve members of law enforcement, suggesting the need for improvements in police handling of media attending protests.
This year also saw a number of incidents in which protesters targeted journalists because of the political alignment that they or the media outlet they work for holds. This has been exhibited by reports originating from anti-government protests aimed at Poland’s conservative Law and Justice Party.
This issue is explored further in our companion report Targeting the Messenger, which is available here. [/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/4″][vc_icon icon_fontawesome=”fa fa-angle-double-right” color=”black” size=”xl” align=”right”][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”3/4″][vc_column_text]
The question of the independence of national broadcasters is regularly debated and contested across Europe.
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_column_text]
Public Broadcasting
During the period covered in this report, Mapping Media Freedom has recorded a number of incidents related to national broadcasters in EU member states. Taken together, these reports outline the importance of maintaining the editorial independence of public broadcasters.
The question of the independence of national broadcasters is regularly debated and contested across Europe. Many governments play an important role in selecting national broadcasters’ management, for instance in Italy or France.
Public broadcasters have come under particular pressure in Poland and Hungary. Overhauled in 2016, Telewizja Polska has come under the direct control of the ruling conservative Law and Justice Party. The Polish legislation was modelled on the Hungarian changes implemented by that country’s ruling party Fidesz. In each country, the restructuring resulted in the elimination of hundreds of positions, including dozens of journalists.
In Austria, the conservative and far-right coalition government is planning an extensive reform of the state Austrian Broadcasting Corporation (ORF), which would include scrapping the tax funding it gets so that funds would be directly allocated by the government.
In June 2018, presenters of Galician public broadcaster TVG’s afternoon news programme resigned in protest at the alleged political influence of the news agenda at the channel. The presenters and some of their colleagues had taken part in regular “Black Friday” actions in protest at the alleged manipulation of the channel’s news report. The action was inspired by an effort launched by staff at the Spanish national broadcaster RTVE in April 2018 in protest at what they see as political manipulation of the news agenda.
The control exerted by the Polish government over state broadcasters creates a situation where state channels can be used as a platform by members of the government to attack private media outlets and journalists working for them, as happened in May when TVP published information meant to discredit Łukasz Maziewski, a journalist who had been critical of the Law and Justice government. TVP pointedly described Fakt, the publication for which he writes, as a “German-Swiss tabloid”. Fakt is the bestselling newspaper in Poland.
In 2017, in Poland, there was a proposal to introduce a 15% cap on foreign ownership of media companies, reminiscent of a Russian law passed in 2014 which prevented foreign investors from owning more than a 20% stake in Russian media outlets. In Poland, public media are pitted against privately owned channels, which government officials regularly attempt to discredit, as happened in May when an MP claimed that 90% of privately owned media belong to foreign capital.
In Poland and Hungary, Mapping Media Freedom has logged incidents in which journalists who work for independent and privately owned media outlets are banned from accessing events, while journalists who work for state media gain access.
In Bosnia and Herzegovina, at the beginning of July, after months of pressure, a cantonal government replaced the managers of the local public broadcaster RTV USK. In Romania, at the end of June, Romanian public television terminated the contract of the production team responsible for the programme Starea Nației (State of the Nation), which had recently aired content that showed the broadcaster’s management in an unflattering light. In a video, TVR head Doina Gradea could be seen berating TVR journalists who had published reports critical of the government, and shouting: “They deserve fists in their mouths!” Gradea and the channel’s legal department signed the notice terminating the contract.
In Austria, in April, a month prior to his election as head of the ORF’s board of trustees, a member of the right-wing governing Freedom Party of Austria voiced his concerns about the “objectivity” of the broadcaster and threatened to dismiss a third of its foreign correspondents.
In Montenegro, at the beginning of June, the council supervising the Montenegrin public broadcaster RTGC dismissed the head of the broadcaster, Andrijana Kadija; the action was seen by local civil society and journalists as an attempt by the ruling Democratic Party of Socialists to stifle editorial independence. The Montenegrin Journalists’ Association said RTCG staff were working under “tremendous political pressure” from the government, making it “difficult for reporters and editors to do their jobs professionally”.
The pressure exerted on journalists results in politically warped content, increased censorship and self-censorship.
Mapping Media Freedom’s Poland correspondent said she felt that public broadcasters contributed to “creating a parallel reality”, and that when she worked for a state broadcaster she abstained from pitching stories that could be deemed controversial, as she knew they would not be commissioned. She said: “Most of the journalists for TVP are very young, not experienced and not qualified, but they fulfil their editors’ expectations. The rest does not matter. Public media outlets are seen as propaganda tools, detached from reality.”
Close governmental control over state broadcasters can have very tangible effects for a country’s citizens. Mapping Media Freedom’s Hungary correspondent, said: “Controlling and using the public media for political purposes is a very important piece in the overall plan of the Orbán government to control the information ordinary people living in rural areas have access to. In underdeveloped areas, most people get their daily news from public media. Local newspapers were purchased by businessmen close to the government; independent radio stations did not receive new licences from the Media Council (and were replaced by government-friendly stations), meaning that people who are not particularly tech-savvy, and don’t use the internet, have no access to information critical to the government. Meanwhile independent media is shrinking.”
Between 2015 and 2016, the European Audiovisual Observatory noted that a third of public media suffered budget cuts totalling nearly €139 million. In France the government asked for large cuts, prompting a strike in autumn 2017. The French government has also announced changes to public television due in 2019. Unions already fear that certain channels will be merged or eliminated.
Debate over licence fees persists across the EU, as seen last year in Switzerland, where the proposition to make the licence fee disappear was overwhelmingly opposed by citizens during a referendum.
This context of crisis contributes to deteriorating working conditions and job losses at state broadcasters. In the Czech Republic, in June, during a meeting of the parliamentary committee for the media, the head of the state radio announced planned cuts of 120 workers. When an opposition party deputy on the committee asked him whether he was planning to use this opportunity to settle scores with his opponents within the radio network by carrying out a purge, the director said that he did not want to increase the licence fee, and that the dismissals would provide enough money in the budget to pay the remaining employees.
These incidents suggest that public media, which plays a vital role in citizens’ right to information, is under acute pressure. The EU must act more decisively to ensure these services have independence.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Limitations to media freedom: Key categories” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_custom_heading text=”Five subcategories that register the most serious threats to individual media professionals” font_container=”tag:h3|text_align:left” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/4″][vc_single_image image=”106449″ img_size=”full”][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”3/4″][vc_column_text]
The 19 reports coded with the death flag from EU member states, candidate states and potential candidate states in the database record a variety of factors.
Member States
Slovakia
Investigative journalist Ján Kuciak and his partner were killed at their home in February 2018. Kuciak was investigating the relationship between criminal syndicates and government officials. Authorities have since made a number of arrests.
Malta
Anti-corruption journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia was killed when the car she was driving exploded as a result of a bomb in October 2017. Caruana Galizia was the subject of multiple lawsuits at the time of her murder.
Denmark
Swedish freelance journalist Kim Wall was murdered during a trip on an experimental submarine in August 2017. Inventor Peter Madsen, who created the vessel Wall was writing a story about, was later found guilty of the crime.
Danish film director Finn Nørgaard and security guard Dan Uzan were murdered in February 2015 when an armed individual attacked two seminars in an attempt to assassinate Lars Vilks, a controversial Swedish cartoonist, who was scheduled to appear.
The Netherlands
Crime journalist Martin Kok was shot dead in December 2016. Kok, who was the founder of a blog about the Dutch criminal underworld, had been targeted with a car bomb in July 2016.
Poland
Journalist Łukasz Masiak was beaten to death in Mława in June 2015. Masiak, who ran local news site NaszaMlawa.pl, which monitored local officials, had regularly received death threats, though Polish authorities later found that his profession did not play a role in his death and the perpetrator was charged.
France
Twelve people were murdered in a January 2015 terrorist attack on satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo. Ten of the victims worked for the weekly, which had published cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed, and two were police officers. Four cartoonists were killed.
Candidate Countries
Serbia
Journalist and radio host Luka Popov was murdered at his home in Srpski Krstur during a burglary in June 2016. Three suspects were later arrested and police said they confessed to the crime.
Turkey
- Syrian journalists Orouba Barakat and her daughter Halla Barakat were murdered by a distant relative in September 2017. They had been subjected to threats from groups associated with the Bashar Assad government.
- In April 2017 Saeed Karimian was killed in Istanbul by several hooded men who shot him and his business partner, a native of Kuwait. Karimian, an Iranian television executive based in Istanbul, was condemned in absentia in Tehran for “spreading propaganda against Iran”.
- During the failed July 2016 coup attempt, soldiers shot and killed Mustafa Cambaz, a photographer with the pro-government newspaper Yeni Şafak, in the Çengelköy neighbourhood of Istanbul.
- Journalist Mohammed Zahir al-Sherqat was murdered in April 2016 by members of Isis, which claimed he was killed for presenting “anti-Islamic State programs”.
- Journalist Gülşen Yıldız was killed in February 2016 during a terrorist attack on a military convoy in Ankara. The journalist was among 28 people killed in the incident.
- The body of Rohat Aktaş, a news editor and reporter for the Kurdish-language daily Azadiya Welat, was recovered in February 2016 from a Cizre basement, where he was trapped with dozens of others during clashes between Kurdish separatists and Turkish forces.
- Syrian journalist Naji Jerf was shot and killed in Gaziantep. Jerf’s murder was seen as an assassination because he had documented atrocities by Isis and trained hundreds of citizen journalists.
- Syrian citizen-journalist Ibrahim Abd al-Qader was beheaded in the city of Şanlıurfa, where he had been living as a refugee. Al-Qader was a contributor to the “Raqqa is Being Slaughtered Silently” information network and the Ayn al-Watan website. The journalist’s body was found at the home of a friend, Fares Hammadi, who had also been decapitated.
- Influential Turkish blogger Ferdi Özmen was killed in Istanbul in October 2014. Özmen was an ardent supporter of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk’s policies and a critic of the government.
- Serena Shim was killed in a car crash in Suruç in October 2014. Shim, a reporter for Iran’s Press TV, had been reporting from the Turkish-Syrian border on Isis militants crossing into Turkey, and had recently said on air that she was accused of spying by Turkish intelligence.
- Media worker Kadri Bağdu was murdered in October 2014 while distributing the Kurdish dailies Azadiya Welat and Özgür Gündem in Seyhan, in the south-eastern province of Adana. He was shot five times by two individuals who then fled on a motorcycle.
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_empty_space height=”15px”][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/4″][vc_single_image image=”106447″ img_size=”full”][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”3/4″][vc_column_text]
There were 445 verified incidents flagged as having a physical assault as part of the narrative in the EU member states, candidate and potential candidate countries.
Italy was the EU member state with the most reports categorised as physical assaults, with 83 incidents verified during the period covered. It was followed by Spain (38), France (36), Germany (25) and Hungary (18). In candidate and potential candidate countries, Turkey had the highest number of assaults with 36. It was followed by Serbia (26), Bosnia and Herzegovina (16), Macedonia (14) and Kosovo (13).
In Italy, assaults are most often directed against journalists by private individuals who are part of the stories being covered. In France, Germany, Spain and Hungary, journalists are most often assaulted during demonstrations – whether by protesters or police. [/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/4″][vc_single_image image=”106446″ img_size=”full”][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”3/4″][vc_column_text]
There were 437 verified incidents flagged as having included an arrest or detention as part of the narrative in the EU member states, candidate and potential candidate countries.
The overwhelming number of arrests and detentions in the countries covered in this report took place in Turkey. The country’s 324 reports – including the 80 that took place before the failed coup of July 2016 – document the ongoing crackdown on press freedom that accelerated after the attempted putsch.
Among the member states, Greece had 15 reports. It was followed by France (9), Germany (8), the Netherlands (7) and Latvia (6). In the candidate and potential candidate countries: Macedonia (9), Serbia (8), Bosnia and Herzegovina (4) and Kosovo (4). [/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/4″][vc_single_image image=”106448″ img_size=”full”][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”3/4″][vc_column_text]
There were 545 verified incidents categorised as having blocked access as part of the narrative in the EU member states, candidate and potential candidate countries.
Among the member states, Hungary’s journalists were prevented from covering events in 52 incidents. It was followed by France (38), Poland (36), Germany (34) and Italy (33). In candidate and potential candidate states, Turkey had 103 incidents. It was followed by Serbia (29), FYROM (28), Bosnia and Herzegovina (19), Albania (5) and Montenegro (5). [/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/4″][vc_single_image image=”106453″ img_size=”full”][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”3/4″][vc_column_text]
There were 697 verified incidents categorised as having intimidation as part of the narrative in the EU member states, candidate and potential candidate countries.
Among the member states, Italy’s journalists were intimidated most often, with 133 reports. It was followed by Romania (47), Croatia (41), France (39) and Hungary (36). In candidate and potential candidate countries, Bosnia and Herzegovina had 47 reported incidents. It was followed by Serbia (40), Macedonia (31), Turkey (31) and Montenegro (19).
Italian journalists are most often threatened by private citizens, who often resort to physical violence. The country’s journalists also face intense pressure from individuals allegedly connected to criminal syndicates. The high number of Italian reports is due to the awareness of the issue raised by the work of Ossigeno per l’informazione, which monitors press freedom in Italy using its oxygen methodology. [/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text][/vc_column_text][vc_custom_heading text=”Selected countries” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_custom_heading text=”We have chosen six nations from the project which demonstrate the various trends outlined above. These are not indicative of “best” or “worst”, and are here to illustrate the regional themes as they are experienced in individual countries.” font_container=”tag:h3|text_align:left” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_column_text]
In Austria, Mapping Media Freedom has recorded a significant rise in the intimidation of media outlets and journalists. Seven of the eight incidents that have been categorised as intimidation were logged by the platform after the December 2017 election. Journalists’ unions and watchdogs see a correlation between the change in Austria’s political landscape and the increase in violations of media freedom.
“Since the inauguration of the Austrian conservative right-wing populist government on 18 December 2017, there are rapidly increasing signs that media freedom is being restricted in Austria. Journalists are publicly attacked by politicians,” Rubina Möhring, president of Reporters Without Borders, told Mapping Media Freedom in March 2018.
Eike-Clemens Kullmann, president of the Journalists Department of Austria’s Union of Private Sector Employees, Graphical Workers and Journalists, told Mapping Media Freedom: “In the print media, the union observes with great concern an increasing number of attacks and defamation aimed at intimidating colleagues who are willing to stand up for the freedom of journalism.”
A clear majority of threats reported to Mapping Media Freedom originated with the right-wing governing coalition partner FPÖ and its political affiliates, which targeted media outlets, in particular the public broadcasting cooperative ORF.
Fred Turnheim, president of the Austrian Journalists Club, told Mapping Media Freedom: “The former far-right opposition party FPÖ has been well known for criticising the press for what it considers a liberal bias and lack of objectivity in the past.”
Turnheim said that since joining the government, FPÖ has the ability to influence the media landscape and try to pressure journalists into silence.
Turnheim views the influence of US President Donald Trump as an important turning point, which now risks normalising the defamation of media outlets as peddlers of fake news and journalists as liars. “President Trump opened the possibility of discrediting journalists without providing any evidence. This is an attitude which has spread not only to Austria.”
Möhring cited the FPÖ’s intention “to intimidate individual journalists in order to produce and influence reports in their favour and to reduce the reputation of independent journalism, especially the ORF, among the general public”. However, she assigned responsibility for the rise in intimidation in the country not only to the FPÖ, but also to Chancellor Sebastian Kurz, “who tolerates and approves of the FPÖ’s behaviour and, additionally, pursues an enforced one-sided information policy called message control”.[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text]
Mapping Media Freedom published 69 reports of censorship in Hungary between May 2014 and 31 July 2018. The most important impact on the state of media freedom is the concentration of media outlets in the hands of a few businessmen close to the government.
Only a handful of independent media outlets continue working in Hungary, publishing almost exclusively on the internet. This has led to a situation where access to information critical of the government is difficult to obtain, especially in rural areas with low internet penetration and for people who are less tech-savvy.
One of the largest internet news sites, Origo, was sold to business circles close to the government in 2014. The most important left-leaning daily, Népszabadság, was closed in October 2016.
After Fidesz won the parliamentary elections in April 2018 for the third time, dissenting oligarch Lajos Simicska sold his media interests. The leading conservative newspaper Magyar Nemzet was closed in April 2018, and the only news channel critical of the government, Hír TV, was also sold in July 2018.
After a media outlet is taken over by business circles close to the government, the leading journalists and management are usually dismissed, and the outlet begins publishing/broadcasting materials in line with the direction set during informal meetings by people close to the government. Self-censorship is pervasive among the journalists who continue working at these outlets.
Press freedom and the right to access to information in Hungary were considerably affected by the acquisition of virtually all county newspapers by businessmen close to the government in 2016.
“We consider the government monopoly on news unhealthy and damaging, going against the laws concerning free competition and media,” Miklós Hargitai, the president of the National Association of Hungarian Journalists (MÚOSZ), told Mapping Media Freedom. He added that because MÚOSZ is not a government authority, its leverage is limited.
“We raise awareness of the illegalities through our statements and petitions, as well as interviews published in the few remaining free media outlets. We also plan to file a complaint to the European Commission, because the media conglomerate serving the interests of the government is functioning using mainly public funds: cheap credits and preferentially contracted state advertising. In our opinion, this is state subsidy, which is forbidden in the EU,” Hargitai said.[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text]
On 21 June this year, the offices of two Dutch weekly magazines were shot at with an anti-tank gun. The property was badly damaged, but as it was late at night, no one was injured. The weeklies, Panorama and Nieuwe Revu, are both known for their reporting on organised crime, and more specifically feuds between various criminal motorcycle gangs. The main suspect turned out to be a member of one of those motorcycle gangs.
Over the past five years, Mapping Media Freedom has shown that most of the media freedom violations in the Netherlands were reported in the subcategory “Intimidation”. The intimidation came from various sources: individuals, politicians, companies and the public. Journalists are mostly the target when they deal with such topics as organised crime, Islam, right-wing politician Geert Wilders and Turkish President Recip Tayyip Erdogan.
Several journalists received threats in the aftermath of the failed coup in Turkey and a diplomatic row between the Netherlands and Turkey in 2017. Political party Denk, a Dutch party accused of having ties with Erdogan’s Justice and Development Party, refused critical journalists at their press conferences. They published a campaign video in which they warn their voters to “distrust the media, don’t fall for it”.
Journalists who write critically about far-right parties like Geert Wilders’ Party for Freedom and Forum for Democracy also often receive threatening and intimidating messages.
A trend of sexist threats and intimidation against women journalists reached a low point in May 2017, when Dutch journalist Loes Reijmer received multiple rape threats after the right-wing blog GeenStijl published her photo with a salacious text. It resulted in many more women journalists coming out in the open with their stories about sexual harassment online.
“Parties like Denk and PVV increasingly depict journalists as a biased party,” said Thomas Bruning, from the Dutch Union for Journalists (NVJ). “And because of social media, the threshold is lower than it used to be for the public to react, often anonymously. And the chance of being caught is lower, so people are getting away with it.”
A prominent Dutch study showed that over 60% of Dutch journalists have at some point in their career received threats and experienced intimidation. The survey, A Threatening Climate (2017), showed that 61% of all (638) questioned Dutch journalists had been threatened, 22% even on a monthly basis. Amnesty International called the Dutch numbers “worrying”.
According to Alex Brenninkmeijer, the former Dutch ombudsman who led the investigation, an explanation is the lack of trust in the media. “This is a consequence of the attitude of politicians towards journalists. You see this in the US and the UK, and it’s spilled over to the Netherlands,” he said. “The tone used by politicians has become increasingly harsh. These are the people who should lead by example.” He added that journalism has become more polarised and politicised over the past few years, like the society has. “The pressure on journalists has increased, as if they are forced to take sides, left or right. As a result, they become the subject of hate and intimidation.”
This often results in self-censorship. The majority of journalists questioned in the survey stated that threats and intimidation have negative consequences on the quality, independence and diversity of their work, and are therefore a danger to press freedom. Some have become more careful when dealing with sensitive topics; some avoid certain places and topics.
Brenninkmeijer added that he is most worried about the vulnerable position of journalists in their profession. “Fewer journalists are contracted, instead they have flexible contracts or are freelancers,” he said. “This leads to an employer having less responsibility for the safety of the journalist. The journalist’s position is weak and unprotected. And journalism becomes increasingly under pressure in society.”[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text]
Between May 2014 and August 2018, Mapping Media Freedom reported 46 cases of censorship in Spanish media. Nemesio Rodríguez, president of the Spanish Federation of Journalism Associations, said: “There is evidence of journalists being pressured to change their information. Only 21% of journalists declare they have never received pressures to change their information. 75.7% believe it is usual that journalists yield to pressure, which in many occasions leads to self-censorship.”
Rodríguez pointed to judicial decisions as one of the factors that have limited the freedom of information. These decisions derive from restrictive laws passed during the right-wing People’s Party governments, especially the so-called “Gag Law” – the Citizen Security Law – which “contains articles that have weakened this freedom, since its judicial interpretation has ended by penalising free opinion. On the other hand, police sanctions against journalists and photojournalists have led to self-censorship to avoid problems.”
The Platform for the Defence of Freedom of Information also blames legislative and judicial powers. “The Citizen Security Law has been applied against journalists in the exercise of their work; and judicial procedures against investigative journalism, mainly in corruption cases by demands for the right to honour.”
Rodríguez also blames governments. “The News Service Council – the body in charge of guaranteeing internal control and independence within Spain’s public TV and radio corporation – reported hundreds of cases of censorship, manipulation, partisanship and other bad practices during Mariano Rajoy’s government.” Rajoy, the former head of the PP, was Spain’s prime minister from 2011 to 2018. “Also, Catalan television TV3 received accusations of informative manipulation and partiality in favour of a pro-independence thesis.”
PDLI pointed out: “We cannot forget other threats, such as the reform of the Criminal Code, as well as the deterioration of working conditions in the press; and the safety of journalists, especially women, due to threats and harassment in social networks would be another relevant factor.”
Overall, Rodríguez remarked that “this is not a state of widespread risk for freedom of expression and freedom of press. There is no censorship in Spain, if we understand censorship as the aim of a government to prevent the dissemination of information contrary to its interests.” Nevertheless, he admitted: “It is much harder to put an end to pressures coming from economic powers, since many media outlets are controlled by financial groups.”
PDLI does not share Rodríguez’s views. “There has been an unprecedented deterioration, particularly since the approval of the ‘Gag Law’, and it needs to be reverted urgently.”[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text]
Sweden is still home to resilient, diverse and independent media, with relatively healthy commercial media supplementing a well-funded public service offering over TV, radio and online. The past year has however seen further evidence that the rise of populist right-wing politics in Sweden threatens both the operational freedom of journalists and their traditional place as an important component in the functioning of Sweden’s parliamentary democracy.
This threat is most obvious in the actions of extra-parliamentary hard-right activists pursuing traditional neo-Nazi methods of intimidation through marching, physical attacks and directly criminal behaviour, but a more pervasive threat is the delegitimisation of the media more generally by activists and politicians from the insurgent Sweden Democrats party.
In August 2018, for example, the SD leader Jimmie Åkesson said on air that he would like to close down the public service radio channel P3 for being too left-wing, attracting criticism. In the runup to the recent election the party has maintained a consistent hostility to the established commercial and public media, which they claim are trapped by political correctness and populated by a leftist elite. On election night Åkesson audibly lamented the number of journalists in the room, and the party’s strong showing has raised the prospect of their influencing media legislation in the coming years. Jesper Bengtsson, the chairman of Swedish PEN, said that “in Jimmie Åkesson’s world all journalism seems to just be an opinion. How should we get away from that idea of journalism?”
This type of scepticism of professional journalistic work has also been evident in the Moderate Party. This summer Hanif Bali, a member of parliament, was heavily criticised after posting mocked-up pictures of himself on the cover of the computer game Call of Duty, indicating that he was at war with the newspaper Dagens Nyheter.
Other dangers in the Swedish media include the increased precarity of work for freelancers, who are facing structural challenges to carrying out their work safely, and the apparent indifference by some members of the police to the safety and responsibility of journalists operating in public spaces. There is also a secondary challenge from foreign broadcasters in the US and Russia producing inaccurate news reporting on Sweden, which then undermines the professional legitimacy of Swedish journalists – a phenomenon which became particularly evident during the election campaign.
Going forward, the Swedish government is taking measures to combat fake news and reform support it provides to online and offline publications.[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text]
Montenegro’s atmosphere of impunity is cited by reporters within the country as the main reason for the high rate of intimidation against media workers. Nineteen of the 47 incidents logged in the country between May 2014 and August 2018 included threats against journalists. The threats come from a variety sources, including politically connected individuals and politicians: “Prime minister’s brother threatens and swears at journalist” and “Parliament vice-president threatens and insults journalist” are among them.
Marijana Camović, president of the Trade Union of Media of Montenegro, told Mapping Media Freedom that the escalation of threats and intimidation is the end result of unresolved assaults and the 2004 murder of Duško Jovanović, who was the director and editor-in-chief of the daily Dan. “In a society where such things are unpunished, then intimidations are even less punished,” Camović said.
According to Tea Gorjanc-Prelević, executive director of Human Rights Action, an NGO that focuses on freedom of expression, one of the main reasons for the rise in intimidation is that there is little respect for the country’s laws, authorities or institutions – “especially if the one who is threatening is affiliated to the authorities”.
Camović said that authorities need to resolve threats against journalists quickly and effectively. She pointed to the case of journalist Sead Sadiković, who was targeted twice in as many years with threats and intimidation. A year after the first incident, an explosive device was thrown at his home because the perpetrators were upset with his reporting. “If the institutions were proactive in the first incident, the second would have never happened,” Camović said.
Gorjanc-Prelević said that priority should be given to strengthening the rule of law regarding all kinds of criminal behaviour, but pressure should also be put on authorities to diligently investigate and sanction those who are threatening journalists.
HRA recently proposed amendments to the Montenegrin Criminal Code with the aim of increasing the punishment for attacks on journalists, in order to contribute to the climate of general prevention.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Methodology” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_column_text]What is Mapping Media Freedom?
The map is a collection of narrative reports about incidents targeting journalists/media workers in 43 countries. While visualised as a map, it is a news service and database verifying, collating and recording threats to media freedom that have been reported to it by a network of correspondents, partners and journalists. The strength of Mapping Media Freedom is that it contains a wealth of details about the types of incidents affecting journalists.
What kinds of incidents are reported?
Mapping Media Freedom monitors limitations, threats and violations that affect journalists as they do their job. We strive to have a complete narrative of the objective facts of incidents without bias against news outlets or journalists.
Each incident is categorised by the following:
Limitation to Media Freedom
Did the incident happen to a media worker while they were carrying out their professional duties? If so, what categories fit the facts of the incident?
- Death: Media worker killed as a result of their work
- Physical Assaults: Media worker subjected to violence as a result of their work
- Injury: Media worker injured as a result of their work
- Arrest/Detention: Media worker arrested or detained as a result of their work
- Interrogation: Media worker questioned by authorities as a result of their work
- Intimidation: Media worker menaced as a result of their work
- Collateral Targets: Threats made against those associated with a journalist, ie family or friends
- Attack to Property: Computers, cameras or other tools damaged
- Civil Charges: Media worker sued as a result of their work
- Criminal Charges: Media worker charged in connection with their work
- Legal Measures: Laws or court orders curtailing media outlets or workers
- Loss of Employment: Termination, job cuts
- Blocked Access: Media worker prevented from covering a story or speaking to a source
- Defamation/Discredit: Media worker publicly ridiculed
- Psychological Abuse: Verbal harassment, offline bullying
- Sexual Harassment: Media worker targeted for gender or sexual identity
- Trolling/Cyberbullying: Media worker harassed online
- DDoS/Hacking: News site or journalist targeted
- Violation of Anonymity: Publicly naming a source
- Bribery/Payments: Money proffered to influence coverage
- Impunity: Incidents where crimes against journalists go unpunished
- Targeting Whistleblowers: Targeting anonymous sources
- Attacking Freedom of Association: Union-busting by media outlet management
Case of Censorship
Did this incident include content produced by a journalist/media worker? What happened to that content?
- Article/Work didn’t appear at all
- Article/Work was heavily cut omitting important information
- Article/Work was slightly but significantly changed
- Article/Work was framed in a misleading way
- Self-censorship
- Soft censorship
- Commercial interference
Source of the Threat/Violation/Abuse
Who targeted the journalist/media worker?
- Employer/Publisher/Colleague(s)
- Police/State Security
- Government/State Agency/Public Official(s)
- Court/Judicial
- Political Party
- Corporation/Company
- Private Security
- Known Private Individual(s)
- Criminal Organisation
- Another Media
- Other/Unknown
Type of Journalist
What type of journalist/media worker was involved? In the case of bloggers/citizen journalists: were they involved in journalistic activities?
- Journalist
- Broadcaster
- Photographer
- Documentarist
- Cameraperson
- Editor
- Blogger/Citizen Journalist
- Other
Gender
What is the gender of the journalist/media worker involved in the incident?
- Female
- Male
- Nonbinary
- Not Applicable
Support Needed
If known, what could unions or media outlets help the journalist with?
- Legal Aid
- Physical Protection
- Training
- Informational Resources
- Publicity
- Union Intervention
- Solidarity
EU Membership
To which category does the country in which the incident took place belong?
- EU Member States
- Candidate Countries
- Potential Candidates
How do we verify the incidents submitted?
The platform’s methodology complies with the journalistic standards employed by Reuters and AP. Each report is verified by 2-3 trusted and independent sources, which include but are not limited to local and national media outlets, journalists’ unions, police reports and the social media accounts of the individuals directly involved.
When violations are self-reported or clarification is needed, Index staff also verify incidents with the media worker(s) affected by getting first-hand testimony, and/or speak to journalists’ unions.
Our verification process is a multilayered one in which staff work with a team of independent journalists to verify and report incidents submitted to the website. The goal is the most complete narrative of the incident that reflects the objective events.
Who is considered a journalist/media worker?
A media worker is anyone partaking in the gathering, assessing, creating and presenting of news and information.
What countries are monitored?
Mapping Media Freedom monitors a total of 43 countries which include the EU member states, candidates and potential candidates for EU membership, non-EU EEA states and four former Soviet bloc nations.
Albania | Austria | Azerbaijan | Belarus | Belgium | Bosnia and Herzegovina | Bulgaria | Croatia | Cyprus (Northern Cyprus) | Czech Republic | Denmark | Estonia | Finland | France | Germany | Greece | Hungary | Iceland | Ireland | Italy | Kosovo | Latvia | Lithuania | Luxembourg | Macedonia | Malta | Montenegro | Netherlands | Norway | Poland | Portugal | Romania | Russia | Serbia | Slovakia | Slovenia | Spain | Sweden | Switzerland | Turkey | Ukraine (Crimea) | United Kingdom | Vatican
European Union member states
Austria | Belgium | Bulgaria | Croatia | Cyprus (Northern Cyprus) | Czech Republic | Denmark | Estonia | Finland | France | Germany | Greece | Hungary | Ireland | Italy | Latvia | Lithuania | Luxembourg | Malta | Netherlands | Poland | Portugal | Romania | Slovakia | Slovenia | Spain | Sweden | United Kingdom
European Union candidate states
Albania | Macedonia | Montenegro | Serbia | Turkey
European Union potential candidate states
Bosnia and Herzegovina | Kosovo
Non-EU states
Azerbaijan | Belarus | Iceland | Norway | Russia | Switzerland | Ukraine (Crimea) | Vatican[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/2″][vc_column_text]Acknowledgements
This report was prepared by Valeria Costa-Kostritsky, Sean Gallagher, Jodie Ginsberg, Joy Hyvarinen and Paula Kennedy with contributions from Mapping Media Freedom correspondents: Adriana Borowicz, Ilcho Cvetanoski, João de Almeida Dias, Amanda Ferguson, Dominic Hinde, Investigative Reporting Project Italy, Linas Jegelevicius, Juris Kaza, David Kraft, Lazara Marinkovic, Fatjona Mejdini, Mitra Nazar, Silvia Nortes, Platform for Independent Journalism (P24), Katariina Salomaki, Zoltan Sipos, Michaela Terenzani, Pavel Theiner, Helle Tiikmaa, Christina Vasilaki, Lisa Weinberger
Illustrations
Alex Green
Design
Matthew Hasteley[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/2″][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_single_image image=”106454″ img_size=”full” alignment=”center”][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_single_image image=”106452″ img_size=”full” onclick=”custom_link” link=”https://ecpmf.eu/”][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_single_image image=”106451″ img_size=”full”][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_single_image image=”106450″ img_size=”full” onclick=”custom_link” link=”https://europeanjournalists.org/”][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][/vc_column][/vc_row]
