07 Sep 18 | Bulgaria, Europe and Central Asia, Mapping Media Freedom, Media Freedom, media freedom featured, News and features
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
After Bulgarian news reporter Maria Dimitrova helped expose an organised crime group from Vratsa’s involvement in fraud and drug trafficking, she received threatening text and Facebook messages. One of the gang’s victims, who spoke to Dimitrova for her report, was later attacked by three unidentified men. According to investigative journalism outlet Bivol, investigators from the Vratsa police precinct, where Dimitrova was questioned, “acted cynically and with disparagement”.
In November 2017, Index on Censorship’s Mapping Media Freedom platform, which monitors press freedom violations in 43 countries, revealed that members of the gang had planned to murder Georgi Ezekiev, the publisher of the Zov News, where Dimitrova works/had worked.
Zoltan Sipos, MMF’s Bulgaria correspondent, says such violations have had a marked impact on the country’s media, adding that “sophisticated” soft censorship is a “big problem”.
“Self-censorship is also an issue in Bulgaria, though the nature of this form of censorship is that its existence is difficult to prove unless journalists come forward with their experiences,” he says.
Under increasing pressure from the government and a media environment becoming more and more censored, journalists within Bulgaria are finding themselves in danger. With an inadequate legal framework, pressure from editors and other limitations, journalists regularly self-censor or suffer the consequences.
Sipos has made 40 reports of media freedom violations in Bulgaria since the project’s launch in 2014.
In May 2018, a report was filed of an investigative journalist was assaulted outside his home in Cherven Bryag, a town in northwestern Bulgaria.
Hristo Geshov writes for the regional investigative reporting website Za Istinata, works with journalistic online platform About the Truth and hosts a programme called On Target on YouTube. In a Facebook post, he said the attack was a response to his investigative reporting and “to the warnings [he] sent to the authorities about the management of finances by the Cherven Bryag municipal government”.
Geshov faced harassment after publishing a series of articles about government irregularities, in which he claimed that three municipal councillors were using EU funds to renovate their homes.
“It is unacceptable that Bulgarian journalists should be the target of physical attacks and that there should even be plots to kill them, simply because they are engaged in investigating official corruption,” Paula Kennedy, the assistant editor for Mapping Media Freedom, said.
“The authorities need to take such attacks seriously and do more to ensure adequate protection for those targeted.”
Bulgarian journalists are also being limited by legislation designed by politicians as a means of censorship. Backed by Bulgarian MPs, amendments to the Law for the Compulsory Depositing of Print Media would force media outlets in the country to declare any funding, such as grants, donations and other sources of income that they receive from foreign funders. Ninety-two members of parliament voted for the amendments on the first reading on 4 July, with 12 against and 28 abstentions. Unlike most legislation, there was no parliamentary debate beforehand.
With the second reading due in September, when it will have to be once again approved by parliament, and the president still has the right to veto it, amendments would force outlets to clearly state the current owner on their website, how much funding they received, who it was from and what it is for.
MPs claim the aim is to make the funding of media organisations more transparent.
Referred to as “Delyan Peevski’s media law”, the amendments were first proposed in February 2018 by MP Deylan Peevski, a politician and media owner. Almost 80% of Bulgarian print media and its distribution is controlled by Peevski, former head of Bulgaria’s main intelligence agency and owner of the New Bulgarian Media Group.
The amendments will create two categories of media, separating those funded by grants and those who receive funding from “normal” practices such as bank loans, which they are not obliged to declare. Peevski-owned media is funded predominantly through bank loans, with his family receiving loans from now-bankrupt Corporate Commercial Bank.
There are few independent media outlets remaining in Bulgaria, with fears the new law will only increase the level of self-censorship within the country. Amendments will put additional pressure on media outlets that rely on foreign grants and donations to maintain their editorial independence.
Atanas Tchobanov, co-founder of Bivol, told MMF the amendments are a way to “whiten [Peevski’s] image”, adding: “The bill is exposing mainly the small media outlets, living on grants and donations. If a businessman gives [Bivol] €240 per year with a €20 month recurrent donation and we disclose his name, his business might be attacked by the Peevski’s controlled tax office and prosecution.
“Delyan Peevski has blatantly lied about his media ownership in the past. Then, miraculously, he started declaring millions in income, but this was never found strange by any anti-corruption institution.”
The level of transparency required of independent media owners has become a major issue within the country, threatening independent journalism and editorial independence.
Speaking at the biannual Time to Talk debate meeting in Amsterdam, Irina Nedeva from The Red House, the centre for culture and debate in the Bulgarian capital Sofia, Bulgaria, tells Index: “We live in very strange media circumstances. On the surface, it might look like Bulgaria has many different private media print outlets, radio stations, many different private tv channels, but in fact what we see is that especially in the print press, more of the serious newspapers cease to exist.”
“They don’t exist anymore, they can’t afford to exist because the business model has changed and what we see is that we have many tabloids,” she adds. “These tabloids are one and the same just with reshaped sentences.”
Nedeva is concerned that such publications don’t adequately criticise the government or businesses. “They criticise only the civil society organisations that dare to show the wrongdoings of the government for example.”
In an effort to examine media ownership within Bulgaria, the European Centre for Press and Media Freedom undertook a press freedom mission in June 2018. The mission found money from government and advertising is distributed to media considered to be compliant. EU funding is controlled by the government, giving those in charge the power to decide which publications receive what. This has created an atmosphere of self-censorship, dubbed “highly corrupting” by an ECPMF into press freedom in Bulgaria.
“There seems to be no enabling environment, politically or economically for independent journalism and media pluralism”, describing the media situation as a “systemic symptom of a captured state,” Nora Wehofsits, advocacy officer for ECPMF tells Index. “If the new media law is accepted, it could have a chilling effect on media and journalists working for “the wrong side”, as the media law could be used arbitrarily in order to accuse and silence them.”
Lada Price, a journalism lecturer at Sheffield Hallam University and Director of Education at the Centre for Freedom of the Media describes for Index the role the media owners play: “There’s lots of abuse of power for personal gain and I think, therein lies the biggest issue for free speech in Bulgaria. Media outlets are not being bought for commercial purposes, but for political purposes. They like to follow their own political and business agendas, and they’re not afraid to use that power to censor criticisms of government or any corporate partners.”
Price says that while the constitution guarantees the right to receive and disseminate information, the media landscape in Bulgaria is very hostile for journalism “because of the informal system of networks, which is dominated by mutual, beneficial relationships”.
“There is a very close-knit political, corporate and media elite and that imposes really serious limits on what journalists can and can not report,” she says. “If you speak to journalists, they might say whoever pays the bill has a say on what gets published and that puts limits on independence. There is no direct censorship, but lots of different ways to make journalists self-censor.”
ECPMF also said in its report into press freedom in Bulgaria that the difficulties media workers face are due to the current censorship climate, adding: “It is difficult to produce quality journalism due to widespread self-censorship and the struggle to stay independent in a highly dependent market.”
Funding from the EU and its allocation has become a controversial issue for media outlets in the country. In January 2018 ECPMF called for fair distribution of EU funds to media in Bulgaria, saying “the Bulgarian government should disseminate funds on an equal basis to all of the media, also to the ones who are critical of the government”. It also requested that the EU actively monitor how EU taxpayers’ money is spent in Bulgaria.
Bulgarian journalism is heavily reliant on EU funding and during the economic crisis of 2008/2009, advertisement revenues fell, making both print media and broadcasters much more dependent on state subsidies.
“When it comes to public broadcasters, they are basically fully dependent on the state budget,” says Price. “That means funding comes from whoever is in power, so they are very careful of what kind of criticisms [they publish], who they criticise. Their directors also get appointed by the majority in parliament.”
“The funding schemes that put restrictions on journalism is by EU funding, which shouldn’t really happen,” she adds. “But if you have your funding which is aimed at information campaigns then that is sometimes channelled by government agencies, but only towards selected media, which we see in the form of state advertising, in exchange for providing pro-government politic coverage.”
According to the US State Department’s annual report on human rights practices, released in April 2018, media law in Bulgaria is being used to silence and put pressure on journalists. ECPMF, in a report released in May 2018, described the current legislation as not adequately safeguarding independent editorial policies or prevent politicians from owning media outlets or direct/indirect monitoring mechanisms.
This was also reiterated by the US State Department’s report, which highlighted concerns that journalists who reported on corruption face defamation suits “by politicians, government officials, and other persons in public positions”.
“According to the Association of European Journalists, journalists generally lost such cases because they could rarely produce hard evidence in court,” the US State Department said.
The report also showed journalists in the country continue to “report self-censorship, [and] editorial prohibitions on covering specific persons and topics, and the imposition of political points of view by corporate leaders,” while highlighting persistent concerns about damage to media pluralism due to factors such as political pressure and a lack of transparency in media ownership.
Nelly Ognyanova, a prominent Bulgarian media law expert, tells Index that the biggest problem Bulgaria faces is “the lack of rule of law”.
“In the years since democratic transition, there is freedom of expression in Bulgaria; people freely criticise and express their opinions,” she says. “At the same time, the freedom of the media depends not only on the legal framework.”
In her view, the media lacks freedom because “their funding is often in dependence on power and businesses”, and “the state continues to play a key role in providing a public resource to the media”.
“The law envisages the independence of the media regulator, the independence of the public media, media pluralism. This is not happening in practice. There can be no free media, neither democratic media legislation, in a captured state.”[/vc_column_text][vc_raw_html]JTNDaWZyYW1lJTIwd2lkdGglM0QlMjI3MDAlMjIlMjBoZWlnaHQlM0QlMjIzMTUlMjIlMjBzcmMlM0QlMjJodHRwcyUzQSUyRiUyRm1hcHBpbmdtZWRpYWZyZWVkb20udXNoYWhpZGkuaW8lMkZzYXZlZHNlYXJjaGVzJTJGNzUlMkZtYXAlMjIlMjBmcmFtZWJvcmRlciUzRCUyMjAlMjIlMjBhbGxvd2Z1bGxzY3JlZW4lM0UlM0MlMkZpZnJhbWUlM0U=[/vc_raw_html][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1536667459548-83ac2a47-7e8a-7″ taxonomies=”8996″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
28 Jun 18 | Austria, Europe and Central Asia, Mapping Media Freedom, Media Freedom, media freedom featured, News and features
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
ORF managing director Alexander Wrabetz. Credit: Franz Johann Morgenbesser
A month prior to his election as head of the Austrian Broadcasting Corporation (ORF) board of trustees in May 2018, Norbert Steger gave an interview to the daily conservative newspaper Salzburger Nachrichten, voicing his concern about the “objectivity” of the broadcaster and announcing his intention to “cut a third of foreign correspondents, should they not report correctly”.
Steger highlighted the coverage of the Hungarian elections as being particularly problematic, criticising the reports of Ernst Gelegs, ORF’s Hungary correspondent who criticised the human rights situation in the country, including the restrictions media freedom, as being “one-sided”. Steger also called for the dismissal of journalists who violate the broadcaster’s guidelines for ORF journalists.
Despite his criticism of the ORF, Steger’s election is hardly surprising given political nature of how positions are assigned: 24 of the board’s 35 members are directly appointed by Austria’s federal and state governments and political parties. An additional six are indirectly appointed by the Federal Chancellor.
When the Social Democratic Party of Austria lost to the populist-conservative Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP) and its far-right coalition partner FPÖ in October 2017, it became clear that Heinz Lederer, former head of the ORF board of trustees and a Social Democrat, would need to make room for a representative of the ruling parties. In the end, the government’s decision was made by Steger, a former FPÖ politician.
Responding to Steger’s comments that journalists cannot be “overly sensitive”, ORF journalist Stefan Kappacher, in his widely-shared acceptance speech for the country’s most prestigious journalism award, said: “As ORF journalists we are grateful to be able to produce independent journalism and we will continue to fight for this independence.”
This independence is in jeopardy. Steger’s election puts ORF managing director Alexander Wrabetz under particular pressure as his position is elected by the board by a simple majority and can vote him out of office with a two-thirds majority. Wrabetz, a Social Democrat and the first person to be elected to this position three times in a row, has survived four national elections. Bernhard Baumgartner, a journalist for the daily newspaper Wiener Zeitung, assumes that the board of trustees will not vote Wrabetz out in order to avoid a public outcry, but rather change the governance structure by law, for example, by replacing the managing director with a management board. According to the weekly magazine Profil, ÖVP and FPÖ agreed that Steger will push for a new ORF law and effectively hand the position over to the ÖVP.
The government plans an extensive reform of ORF. The government programme includes a “re-definition of the mandate of the public media” as well as “structural and financial reforms”, as Index on Censorship reported earlier this year. This also entails the replacement of the ORF public tax, its primary source of financing, which currently guarantees accountability to the public, serving as the most important guarantee of the broadcaster’s ability to maintain its watchdog function in society. “Financing public service broadcasting via the public budget” instead of direct public tax would “set the wrong incentives” and would make the ORF “vulnerable”, Austria’s president Van der Bellen warned. Kappacher predicts even more drastic consequences: “The allocation of political funding would then be based on the reporting behaviour of ORF journalists.”
This concern is widely shared by other journalists and NGOs. Udo Bachmair, a former ORF journalist and president of the Vereinigung für Medienkultur (Association for Media Culture), tells Index on Censorship that he considers the public tax indispensable and that its replacement risks making the ORF completely dependent on the government. “The replacement of objective reporting with conformity as we’ve seen in Hungary and Poland would be a logical consequence,” he says. “The ORF’s political independence is a key element to democracy in Austria. Together with other quality print media, it guarantees independent, high-quality journalism.”
Bachmair adds that as Austria has a particularly high concentration of tabloids, which have been promoting right-wing populist tendencies for many years, “it is even more important that the ORF fulfils its mission to inform the public and hold against the tendency to paint black and white pictures and promote hatred on the internet”.
The recent spate of direct attacks on the ORF and its journalists by representatives of the FPÖ causes ORF journalists to feel under increasing pressure, Bachmair says. “This reminds me of the first ÖVP-FPÖ coalition in Austria between 2000 and 2006, where an increasing number of TV broadcasting journalists complained about attempts of political intervention. However, the scale reached now is unprecedented.”
For now, it is not within the competence of the board of trustees to make management decisions. Wrabetz made this clear in his reaction to Stegers attempt to put the ORF and its foreign correspondents in line as he pushed back on Twitter and announced an extension of Gelegs’ contract, due to this “excellent reports”. Wrabetz also voiced his intention to further strengthen foreign correspondents and to expand by two more offices by 2020.
Steger did not apologise for his statements in the interview but told the left-wing daily newspaper Der Standard that he “misses the full explanation behind his statement”, insinuating that his statement was reported out of context. “It is not acceptable to have privileged, well-paid people [at the ORF] who think that differentiating between reports and opinion does not apply to them,” he said. “ORF foreign correspondents currently produce opinion rather than reports, which I strongly oppose.” It is the ORF managing-director who would need to intervene against “violations of objective reporting”. Wrabetz has not taken appropriate actions, according to Steger.
For now, ORF journalists such as Wrabetz and anchorman Armin Wolf push against these changes as much as possible, but support from the top slowly fades. In their last session in March 2018, the ORF Viewers’ and Listeners’ Council adopted a resolution. It states: “The ORF Viewers’ and Listeners’ Council strongly rejects the current attacks of a ruling party on public service broadcasting including ORF staff and the intention to abolish the ORF public tax.”
The Council also warned of any attempt to undermine press freedom, naming intimidation attempts against the media and in particular against ORF journalists as an example. On 3 May 2018 however, the Council’s latest elections took place and chancellor Sebastian Kurz replaced the majority of SPÖ members by affiliates of his own party, subjecting another body of the ORF’s top level entirely to the government’s will.
Increasingly, civil society organisations are speaking out against the government’s attempts to weaken the ORF’s independence. Several artists, media experts, publicists and writers founded the platform We, for the ORF. Its self-declared aim is “to fight against the ORF’s political absorption”. As the government’s long-promised media symposium took place on 6 and 7 June 2018, which should serve as the basis for an ORF reform, We, for the ORF organised a protest a day earlier called The Better Media Symposium, which garnered the support of over 40 organisations.
Bachmair, a member of the platform, tells Index: “While the platform’s public appearance in the media is limited, it is an important voice, which it will use to monitor and report on the media developments of the upcoming months. Moreover, the platform will fight for the future independence of the ORF and, in a broader sense, for media freedom and a media landscape characterised by plurality, diversity and critical, high-quality journalism.”[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_raw_html]JTNDaWZyYW1lJTIwd2lkdGglM0QlMjI3MDAlMjIlMjBoZWlnaHQlM0QlMjIzMTUlMjIlMjBzcmMlM0QlMjJodHRwcyUzQSUyRiUyRm1hcHBpbmdtZWRpYWZyZWVkb20udXNoYWhpZGkuaW8lMkZzYXZlZHNlYXJjaGVzJTJGNjklMkZtYXAlMjIlMjBmcmFtZWJvcmRlciUzRCUyMjAlMjIlMjBhbGxvd2Z1bGxzY3JlZW4lM0UlM0MlMkZpZnJhbWUlM0U=[/vc_raw_html][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1530108986023-3bfc44c5-d383-0″ taxonomies=”7592, 6564″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
09 May 18 | Cyprus, Europe and Central Asia, Media Freedom, media freedom featured, News and features
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Politis journalists protest their gagging: Sotiris Paroutis, Dionisis Dionisiou and Manolis Kalatzis
In January 2018 a Cypriot court issued an injunction forbidding daily newspaper Politis from publishing emails that were hacked from the personal account of a suspended state attorney, Eleni Loizidou, news website newsit.com.cy reported.
Politis had re-published a number of emails Loizidou had sent from a Gmail account that had been made public by a Russian website. The emails suggested that Loizidou, who was formerly head of extradition requests, may have aided Moscow in the extradition cases of Russian nationals.
Loizidou requested an injunction against the newspaper, preventing it from publishing or using content from the hacked personal account she had used to communicate with the Russian judicial services. The ban is valid until the lawsuit against the newspaper is heard or until another court order is issued.
Loizidou has also filed a lawsuit against Politis seeking between €500,000 and €2 million in damages. The suit claims the newspaper violated her right to privacy and the law on the protection of personal data.
Police officers also demanded that Phileleftheros newspaper remove any articles that reported on the Loizidou case.
The head of Cyprus’ Union of Journalists, George Frangos, defended the newspapers and said: “In no case should the letter of the law be above the spirit of the law which is primarily to serve the common good and public interest.”
In February 2018, the Cypriot press reported that the police have been questioning journalists over the leaked emails. The attorney general, in his statements to the Cyprus News Agency on 4 January 2018, said that: “In a written letter dated 1 December 2017, the Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation requested that a criminal investigation is carried out on the interception of electronic data concerning the Russian Public Prosecutor’s Office.”
Five journalists from the newspaper Politis, two journalists from the newspaper Phileleftheros, two journalists from the newspaper Kathimerini, two journalists from the Sigma TV and a journalist from the newspaper Alithia were summoned to question.
The first journalist who was called in was Manolis Kalatzis from Politis. “The investigators informed me of my rights and announced to me that I am suspicious of criminal offences,” Kalatzis told Mapping Media Freedom adding that he was asked to recognise his articles and reveal his sources.
“It was a clear attempt at gagging the press, as there were the civil lawsuits against journalists claiming compensations of millions of euros. At the same time, Loizidou remains in her post and is being audited only for offences punishable by reprimand,” Kalatzis said.
The Cypriot journalists’ union condemned that the questioning of journalists “constitute a hindrance to the freedom of expression and the media freedom”.
“Now, police are summoning journalists one after the other and question them as suspects of violating the law because in their articles they use one or two words or phrases already made public like ‘Dear Vladimir’ or ‘Really missed you’,” Philelftheros’ editor-in-chief, Aristos Michaelides, wrote in a front-page op-ed accusing the police of abusing their power.
“The authorities must stop harassing journalists and treating them as if they are criminals,” said the IFJ General Secretary Anthony Bellanger. “We stand in solidarity with all those seeking to expose the truth.”
OSCE representative on Freedom of the Media Harlem Désir also expressed concern about the court decision in Cyprus as well as the questioning by the police of several journalists of the daily newspapers Politis and Phileleftheros. “It is essential that journalists be free to report on issues of public importance,” Désir said after sending a letter to Foreign Minister Ioannis Kasoulides, referring to media reports about leaked emails between state attorney Eleni Loizidou and Russian officials. Désir also stressed that journalists should not be questioned by the police about their work.
Moreover, on 19 March, six Cypriot MEPs sent a written question to the European Commission, asking whether the Commission is aware that “journalists are being called in for questioning by the police authorities in Cyprus under suspicion of conspiring to commit an offence” and whether it considers that “there may be problems with freedom of the press and the freedom of expression of journalists in Cyprus”.
On the 3 April, Cyprus’ attorney-general decided not to prosecute journalists for the leaked emails. In an announcement from the Legal Service, it is noted inter alia that the decision was taken because it was concluded that the prosecution of journalists is not in the public interest.
It added that the case raised two kinds of public interest — one was safeguarding personal communications and the other was the public’s right to be informed about issues of public interest.
“Weighing the two…and after taking into account the relevant national and European case law, as well as more general legal principles, the attorney-general judged it would not serve the public interest if he launched a criminal prosecution,” the statement said. [/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text][/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1525771631211-2562d882-930f-2″ taxonomies=”6833″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
04 Apr 18 | Europe and Central Asia, Mapping Media Freedom, Media Freedom, media freedom featured, News and features, Portugal
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
The photo that won Enric Vives-Rubio the 2017 Gazeta Award, one of the most prestigious awards in Portuguese journalism.
Despite having worked in Portugal’s small media industry for the past two decades, photojournalists Enric Vives-Rubio and Nuno Fox have never worked in the same newsroom. However, their careers share certain similarities, including poor working conditions, job loss and a reluctant turn of their backs to the profession.
Vives-Rubio got a job at the Portuguese daily Público in November 2005. “It was just the kind of newspaper I hoped I’d work for one day,” he told Mapping Media Freedom.
However, the conditions offered didn’t match Vives-Rubio’s hopes. Instead of proposing to hire him on a regular contract like most of its workers, Público offered to pay him through a “recibo verde”. These “green receipts” are a way for independent or freelance workers to charge companies for their services on an occasional basis, but the system is often abused by Portuguese companies to hire de facto full-time workers without offering them job security or the benefits that come with a full-time contract.
Employers get all the advantages of full-time staff — no obligation to grant job benefits and the possibility to lay off employees with no justification or severance pay due — while the worker is left with no job security and pays nearly twice as much tax as someone on a regular contract.
According to a study by the Union of Journalists, 33.4% of journalists working in Portuguese newsrooms are working without a contract. Although there isn’t a specific number, João Miguel Rodrigues, a photojournalist and a member of the Union of Journalists, says that “many are photojournalists”.
The offer made to Vives-Rubio by Público was hard to resist. “The offer was bad, but I couldn’t say no otherwise I’d be unemployed,” he explained. He was told when he was hired that the green receipt situation was “temporary” and that two months later — come the end of the financial year in 2006 — he would get a proper contract.
“Things didn’t turn out quite like that after all,” Vives-Rubio said.
During the first two years, he’d ask his superiors about his situation on a monthly basis. His insistence got him a contract — although not the one he was looking for — in which he would still work under the green receipt system on an annual basis. This, however, did not grant him any job benefits or job security beyond 365 days.
While all of his colleagues had a €3,000 annual stipend to spend on working material, Vives-Rubio had to pay for his own camera and lenses. He also missed out on food allowance, health insurance, sick days, parental leave and the additional two pay packets per year that full-time workers are entitled to by law.
The situation dragged on until June 2017 when he was called for a meeting with Público. They wanted him to work 15 days per month rather than 22 (a decrease of 32%), and for €1,000 instead of €1,750 (a decrease of 43%).
“They weren’t there to negotiate and were just looking for a way to get rid of a problem,” Vives-Rubio said. Leaving the room without a deal in hand, he resolved to work until the end of his contracted year on 23 July. During this time he was given less assignments while his colleagues were given more. Then, in June, his entrance card stopped working. Público had told a contracted worker who had been going in and out of the building for 12 years that he was barred from entering.
Since he was laid off, Vives-Rubio has received the Gazeta award, one of the most prestigious in Portuguese journalism. However, he doesn’t see a future for him in the media industry anymore. “Photojournalists are all slowly being laid off, so why knock on doors?” he asks. “I’ll keep on making journalism, but it will be for myself. As a photographer, I’ll have to reinvent myself.”
The experience of photojournalist Nuno Fox is similar to that of Vives-Rubio. Ever since he started his career in 2004, he has never had a full-time contract. He started his career at the daily Diário de Notícias before moving to the weekly Expresso, all under the green receipt regime.
“I was hired after there was a layoff in the newspaper and they needed to fill in some positions,” said Fox. He was given a €1,500 monthly salary. “This figure was verbally agreed; there’s no paper trail,” Fox said. “I was a part of the newsroom in every way except I wasn’t properly contracted.”
Fox also used his own camera and lenses too. In one of his last assignments for Expresso, he covered the funeral of Portuguese football legend Eusébio. “It was raining heavily but I had to do my work anyway,” he says. As a result, two of his lenses were damaged. “I thought the newspaper would pay for the damage but they told me it was none of their business. I had to pay €900 to fix one of them and I gave up on the other one because it would have cost me more than €1000 to repair it.”
In 2014, the Impresa media group, to which Expresso belongs, decided to create a pool of photojournalists that would work across all of its titles. Fox wasn’t included and was told his services were no longer needed. “I had no protection against this, so it was an easy choice for them,” he says.
The day after he was laid off, Fox wrote down a list of all publications he was interested in working for, picked up the phone and called their photo editors. “I knew things weren’t easy in journalism, so I decided to go beyond those phone calls,” he says. He also made calls to find work as a commercial photographer. “It was never my intention to go that way, I really believed in journalism, but I was left with no option.”
Three years on, most of Fox’s income now comes through commercial photography. At first, he felt uneasy about turning his back on photojournalism, but is now at peace with this reality. “It’s not that I lost my passion for the job, but I don’t identify with the mindset that values quantity over quality that brought us here.”
Rodrigues underlines that “photojournalists are the most affected by job instability” amongst Portuguese media workers. Those who work with images rather than words deemed less crucial for journalism. “In the eyes of many in newsrooms, photojournalists are looked down on as mere technicians.”
Photojournalists are among the “most versatile” elements in newsrooms and, with increasing pressures, aren’t given enough time to do their jobs properly, Rodrigues says. “When photojournalists are treated like this, the pride they take in their work vanishes and they lose their motivation.”[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1525097962341-ec9d666d-b1a7-9″ taxonomies=”6564″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
