ACCESS TO INFORMATION

The rules and practice of media supervision guarantee sufficient independence for the publicly owned media. The privately owned media is subject to licensing and regulatory regimes that ensure its independence from the government.

The independence of media is nowadays a matter of course in Finland. Media independence is guaranteed by the Act on the Exercise of Freedom of Expression in Mass Media from 2003 and supported by public and political discourse, in which free and pluralist media is considered an important means for debates among citizens and the formation of public opinion. According to Reporters without Borders’ Worldwide Press Freedom Index 2009, Finland was ranked first along with Denmark, Ireland, Norway and Sweden. Finland’s national broadcasting company, Yleisradio, is a public broadcaster owned by the Finnish state and is funded through private television broadcasting license fees and a television fee. Governed by a parliamentary council, Yleisradio operates five national television channels, a dozen radio channels and some 25 regional radio stations. In their operation, freedom of speech is regarded a political right and broadcasting activities an impartial means for the mediation of differing opinions and debates.

Public and private media are wholly independent of government. The state broadcasting (radio and TV) company is supported by the fees from a mandatory license. It is obliged to give balanced coverage of political events and to guarantee access to a variety of political views. Access by political parties for electioneering purposes must also be balanced. The state broadcaster does not enjoy a monopoly in any area of broadcasting, but faces competition from private TV and radio stations.
Oversight of broadcasting and print media has recently been recast under new legislation. The Broadcasting Authority of Ireland (BAI) was established on October 1, 2009 following the enactment of the Broadcasting Act 2009. Its terms of reference require it to “ensure that the democratic values enshrined in the constitution, especially those relating to rightful liberty of expression, are upheld, and to provide for open and pluralistic broadcasting services.”
The BAI’s Compliance Committee can investigate and rule on complaints relating to issues of fairness, objectivity and impartiality. Under this heading, it can enforce the requirement that all news broadcast by a broadcaster is reported and presented in an objective and impartial manner, without any expression of the broadcaster’s own views. In the treatment of current affairs, including matters which are either of public controversy or the subject of current public debate, broadcasters must ensure that reports are fair to all interests concerned and that the broadcast material is presented in an objective and impartial manner, without any expression of the broadcaster’s own views. Any viewer or listener may refer a complaint to the BAI if they are unhappy about program content on an Irish licensed broadcasting service, either radio or television.
The Press Council of Ireland and the Office of the Press Ombudsman were established on January 1, 2008. Citizens now have access to an independent press complaints mechanism that is described as “quick, fair and free.” Among its aims is “to defend the freedom of the press and the freedom of the public to be informed.”
Thus, the relationship between the press and the government is an arm’s length one. Systematic preferences or biases undoubtedly exist in press editorial coverage, but there is sufficient variety of editorial opinion and adequate complaints procedures to prevent any undermining of the democratic process.
Attempts by governing parties to curtail the freedom of the press appear to be virtually nonexistent, although the use of public relations firms and “spin doctors” to present news in the light most favorable to those in power is widespread.

The dominant TV and radio corporation is state owned, but there are also private TV and radio stations. Newspapers are entirely in private hands. The dominant broadcasting house (NRK) is government-owned, but organized in a way that ensures considerable autonomy. The government does not intervene in the organization’s daily practices or editorial decisions. However, since NRK is a non-commercial actor, it is largely financed by a fee which is compulsory for all citizens who have a television. The amount of the fee is set by parliament. The president of the state media is appointed by the government.
An institution called the Kringkastingsrådet plays an oversight role, monitoring, debating and expressing views about the management and activities of state-funded broadcast media. It can also give advice on administrative and economic issues. The issues debated by the council can originate with the chairman of the state channels or from the public (including criticism and complaints). The opinions expressed by the Kringkastingsrådet carry substantial weight, and recommendations from this council are usually implemented. Eight council members are appointed by the parliament, and an additional six by the government.
Newspapers are free from any government interference. Freedom of the press is explicitly guaranteed in the constitution; the constitutional article addressing press freedoms was amended and strengthened in a constitutional amendment in 2004.

Media freedom in Sweden is valued and well-protected. The Swedish constitution’s Freedom of the Press Act and the Fundamental Law on Freedom of Expression guarantee a secure freedom of the press.
Sweden’s state-owned radio (SR) and TV channels (SVT) have a long history as public service corporations. The incumbent governments appoint the respective boards. However, there is no evidence that Swedish governments have ever sought to use that position to control programs, productions or the political statements put forward in the public media. The Swedish Radio Act and charters between the government and SVT guarantee the independence of public media from pressure groups and political parties.
As a result of recent deregulation, the supply of private radio and TV media increased significantly. There is no evidence that these private media are influenced by the state, political parties or pressure groups.
Print media are privately owned. The private media are independent from government influence. Despite concentration of print media in some organizations and companies, these media are independent from political or financial pressures. The public places a great deal of importance on the degree of freedom of the media.
It is noteworthy that trust is especially high in public media (TV and radio), whereas trust into private media (especially TV) is lowest in Swedish society.

Public and private media corporations are free from government influence. This is enshrined in the Swiss constitution. Although the federal government chooses the chairperson and some board members of the quasi-public nonprofit radio and television organization, it is not able to exercise any influence over the organization’s daily reporting or journalistic work (Marcinkowski 2007).

The media sector in the United States is overwhelmingly private; the public sector on the national level (TV and radio) is small, and its public funding base is shrinking. There were isolated scandals involving government agencies secretly paying certain local news commentators for favorable stories during the George W. Bush administration. The Obama White House briefly attempted to punish the blatantly biased and often inaccurate Fox News network as an “illegitimate” news organization by providing inferior access to the president. But in general, government interference in the media sector has been nearly non-existent. The Internet is increasingly becoming the source of information for many citizens. Not only do traditional print and electronic media go online, but there are a number of high-quality Internet-based publications such as the Huffington Post, Politico and Slate. Television and radio broadcasters are regulated by an independent commission, the Federal Communications Commission, on the basis of public interest and market concentration considerations.

The administrative structure of public television and radio also includes a board or council which consists of representatives of the main political parties. This body makes binding decisions, so its influence is considerable. On paper, the main administrator is supposed to be independent, but the head of the main French-speaking public television and radio station (RTBF) claims an official political affiliation (yet this is not the case for the head at public Flemish sender VRT). However journalists at RTBF are free from direct control or political influence, apart from a few rare instances when political journalists in particular felt some political pressure over coverage. Yet such instances do not happen often; when they do, they are then publicized with the result that journalists eventually are able to maintain their independence.
Private media in Belgium is more completely independent from political influence and scrutinizes public action increasingly well. There are however some connections between managers of the main private media operators (for example, television station VTM in Flanders and RTL in Wallonia) and some political parties. This seldom translates into direct influence over broadcasts, however.

Canada scores a 9 out of 10 in the extent to which the media are independent from government. The only publicly owned media organization in Canada at the national level is the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), which runs radio and television stations. Its independence from government control is ensured by statute. However, this independence has limits. For example, it is unlikely that Radio-Canada, the Quebec branch of the CBC, would be permitted to advocate the break up of the country. On the other hand, many feel that Radio-Canada journalists express a pro-Quebec independence position in their work.

Privately owned media organizations can of course take any political position they wish. The only leverage held by the government over these media is its power to choose where to advertise or where to inform the public of government policies and programs. In theory, if a government does not like the viewpoint of a particular media outlet, it can use the retraction of government advertising as a punishment. This is seldom done by the federal government or provincial governments, but is more common on the part of municipal governments.

Press freedom is protected by the Danish constitution, section 77, with certain restrictions concerning libel, blasphemy and racism.
Denmark’s radio and TV2 are governed by independent boards appointed by the culture minister, the People’s Assembly (Folketing) and employees. No MPs are allowed to be board members and legislation endeavors to assure that programs are impartial and diverse. State-run media are financed by an annual license fee, but commercials are increasingly allowed. Private media, especially newspapers, used to have party affiliations, but such affiliations have lessened in recent years. Freedom House describes private media in Denmark as “vibrant.”
Denmark used to score very high on the annual Press Freedom Index, published by Reporters without Borders. But in 2006, Denmark dropped to 19th place, mostly as a result of the fallout following the publication of the cartoon of Muhammad in a Danish newspaper. In 2008 Denmark was in14th place. But in 2009, Denmark rose to first place together with a small group of countries. So during the period under review the independence of media in Denmark has improved quite substantially.

The media market is small and a pluralistic market is only possible thanks to generous press subsidies. One might allege that the subsidies are an indirect way of influencing the media, but in general the independence of the media is respected by the government and the rules for granting subsidies are transparent and unanimously accepted.

Freedoms of the press and expression are formally guaranteed by the constitution (Article 7). The Dutch approach to public broadcasting is unique. Programs are produced by a variety of organizations, some reflecting political or religious currents in society, others representing interest groups. These organizations are allocated TV and radio airtime that is relative to their size in number of members. In principle, broadcasting corporations are independent, and autonomous organizations are responsible for their own programming, program content and budgets. However, broadcasting corporations are required to comply with regulations laid down in the Media Law (Mediawet, Stb. 1987, nr. 249).

Since 1988, the Dutch Media Authority (Commissariaat voor de Media) has been charged with enforcing the Media Law. It guards the independence, quality and diversity of information provided by public and private broadcasting corporations alike. The Commissariaat also guarantees the non-commercial character of the public broadcasting system, and honest relations between public and private media. This is no easy job, as public radio and TV channels face stiff competition from commercial stations, which mushroomed after a 1988 law lifted the ban on commercial broadcasting.

The Commissariaat is an independent governmental authority (ZBO), with its own, autonomous tasks and discretionary space. Although the Commissariaat has the right to makes decisions on its own, it is accountable to the minister of education, culture and science, who nominates the Commissariaat’s chairperson. The chair’s political orientation appears to have become a less important issue over the years. Whereas the Commissariaat refrains from censorship and employs post hoc methods of law enforcement, politics do influence in particular public media outlets through the Commissariaat in ways that may restrict their freedom. Examples include the prohibition of alcohol advertising before 9 p.m., the development of a code of conduct for “safe media-provision,” and salary ceilings for public media employees.

Freedom of the media is regulated by the Broadcasting Standards Authority. In addition, it is safeguarded by the New Zealand Press Council, an independent organization that hears complaints from consumers and publishes annual reports. In its 2008 report the press council warned against “creeping regulation” through codes of conduct and guidelines in bills such as the Public Health Bill 2007. In addition, it sees a conflict between the allocation of information, especially in the “new” media and the protection of privacy. This shows that the press council is not only highly sensitive to encroachments on the media but also takes the privacy principle into account. International rankings by Freedom House and Reporters without Borders with regard to media freedom place New Zealand at top positions.

The mass media in Australia enjoys a high level of freedom, and a series of High Court cases in the 1990s further entrenched media freedom within the legal framework. One included a case in 1991 when the High Court struck down an attempt by the then Labor government to restrict political advertising on television. The political culture is also conducive to a high level of media freedom and the media itself is strongly independent of political influence.
The publicly owned broadcaster is also independent, although it is accountable to a board of directors appointed by the government.
One threat to media freedom comes from anti-terrorism laws, and in particular the Anti-Terrorism Act 2005, which was introduced after the 7/7 bombings in London. The government concluded that existing legislation would not have been able to protect the Australian public from a similar terrorist event. The legislation allowed for, among other things, control orders to restrict freedom of speech by individuals and the freedom of the media to publish their views. Despite several attempts, the implications of the legislation for media freedom have not yet been tested in court.
A further potential threat concerns the government’s proposal to introduce an internet filter. While ostensibly intended to simply block material that is already unlawful in Australia when transmitted in other (electronic and non-electronic) forms, concerns have been raised that it will stifle legitimate public and political debate, for example about euthanasia and abortion. Moreover, the identities of blocked web sites will not be disclosed under the proposed legislation, creating the potential for illegitimate political interference with decisions over blocked content.

The German Basic Law guarantees the freedoms of expression, press and broadcasting, and prohibits censorship (with limitations set by mutual respect, personal dignity and the protection of young people). This high standard of independence from political interference holds true for the print media, which is largely self-regulated. The German Press Council was established to protect the freedom of the press. However, Germany found itself at only 18th place in the Worldwide Press Freedom Index 2009, a disappointing showing compared with the aforementioned high aims. In the realm of television, the Interstate Treaty on Broadcasting and Telemedia creates a general countrywide framework for public and private broadcast media. In the private broadcasting sector, governmental influence is limited to general provisions, regulations and guidelines aimed at preventing discrimination or other abuse of broadcast media as stated in the interstate treaty. While the relationship between public authorities and private media can be seen as unproblematic, there are observed dependencies between authorities and the public media that are at least questionable.
An event in late 2009 raised considerable doubts as to whether German party-biased public authorities are still willing to guarantee the independence of publicly owned media outlets. The politically motivated dismissal of ZDF Chief Editor Nikolaus Brender by the ZDF administrative board attracted extensive attention. The issue was raised as to whether German politicians should be allowed to influence the career prospects of the journalists who report on them. Several constitutional lawyers raised constitutional objections to the composition of the board itself. The quarrel will have legal ramifications. In the aftermath of Brender’s dismissal, the executives of the federal states were unable to come to agreement on a reform package that would have redefined states’ involvement in the public media arena. Subsequently, Kurt Beck (SPD), prime minister of Rhineland-Palatinate, announced that his state would file a judicial review against the ZDF interstate treaty (Spiegel Online: 25.03.2010). Beck, who is also chairman of the ZDF administrative board, cited concerns regarding the unconstitutional exploitation of governmental power and questioned whether the publicly owned media truly possessed independence.
The appeal to the Constitutional Court has some prospects of success, as evidenced by the harsh reactions of constitutional lawyers to the ZDF case. A group of 35 constitutional law scholars discussed the high-profile case in an open letter, concluding that the incident was an “obvious attempt to strengthen the influence of party politics” (FAZ: 22.11.2009) on public broadcasting. While media freedom is without doubt given high value and is effectively protected in Germany, this affair indicates that not all politicians really respect this principle fully.

Until the late 1980s, all radio and TV stations were owned by the state. The state monopoly in this market was abolished by law in 1986. Since that time, private stations have gained momentum and are now a significant part of the media market. Even so, there were only nine private TV stations in 2008 compared with 12 in 2005. There is one state-run TV station. Even though the government respects the independence of the media, the law does not provide full protection against government influence or intervention. The Act on Radio and TV (Útvarpslög) has regulated radio and TV since 2000.
In international comparison, the Icelandic mass media has been described as working in an “exceptionally open and free media environment” (Freedom House, 2004). The legal environment can be described as having the characteristic of negative freedom – that is, freedom from restrictions instead of being subject to obligations and responsibilities (positive freedom).
During the boom after 2000, a frenzied competition for control of the media took place, focusing especially on the TV sector but also encompassing the newspaper business. The three main business groups in Iceland each had a bank and a newspaper in their portfolio, a common feature in preludes to past financial crises around the world. After the crash of 2008, the ownership of the oldest and second-largest newspaper (Morgunblaðið) was transferred from a bankrupt banker to an owner of fishing quotas. The paper is currently edited by a former prime minister, and in keeping with the interests of the owner, is strongly supportive of the fishing lobby and strongly opposed to EU membership. In effect, the government under this prime minister enriched the quota owners by handing them hugely valuable common-property fishing quotas free of charge, and then, in an evident quid pro quo, one such owner bought a newspaper and installed the former prime minister as editor.

Under the Tusk government, government influence on the media has declined. Reporters without Borders registered a substantial increase in press freedom and ranked Poland 19 positions higher in 2009 than in 2007. In December 2008, parliament removed a controversial passage in the penal code that had punished libel with time in prison. The reform of the electronic media, which still show a strong bias in favor of the PiS, has been subject to greater controversy Rumor has it that the government was involved in a coup at the National Council of Radio and Television at the end of 2008, which resulted in the suspension of the PiS-leaning leadership of public television and, at the same time, made director of TV Polska a representative of a right-wing fringe party with dubious credentials. In May 2009, the governing coalition adopted a new media law which aimed at changing the composition of the National Council, but also expanded the powers of the council vis-à-vis journalists. Due to President Kaczyński’s veto, however, the reform has not been enacted yet.

Television channels in the United Kingdom, both in the public and private sector, are required by law to be politically neutral, while no such requirement exists for the print media. The BBC, the country‘s leading public service broadcaster, is overseen by a board of governors and enjoys a large degree of political independence, although it has come under increasing scrutiny from party political interests (especially from the opposition) in recent years. This is to no small amount due to attempts to actively shape the media’s agenda through “spin.” After excessive use of this during the Blair government, attempts at indirect media control were reduced under Gordon Brown, in part in order to distance himself from his predecessor.

In practice, all governments engage in news management, but there is also a robust skepticism in the media about government and considerable freedom for journalists to dig into and exploit information. In the last two years, freedom of information requests (often resisted by the information owners) have been pivotal in exposing malpractice by politicians, especially in the context of the parliamentary expense-report and party funding scandals. There is some concern in the media about whether the strength of the libel laws inhibits investigative reporting, but also a societal disquiet over media intrusion into private affairs driven more by prurience than by true concern with the national interest.

The Czech Republic has traditionally been characterized by a high degree of media freedom. Formal restrictions on the free expression of opinion have been limited, public and private media have been largely independent from the government, and the press law has been liberal. Concerns about the freedom of the media have been raised by the so-called muzzle law that came into effect on April 1, 2009, passed by parliament with little opposition apart from the Communists. This measure established penalties of up to five years in prison for publishing the names of crime victims without their permission or for publishing any account drawn from police wiretaps in newspapers or on the Internet, TV or radio. A number of newspapers and journalists’ organizations criticized this as a serious infringement on press freedom. The background to the first part of the law was the treatment of various child victims of crime. The second part was a reaction to a series of cases in which police investigations had found their way into the media, leaked by police officers, which served to compromise certain politicians. In some cases these helped expose corruption, as police investigations of this type were often mysteriously dropped before coming to court. Passing the law could be justified as an indirect means of enforcing discipline in the police force, but the effect was also to protect corrupt politicians.

Japanese media are free to report the news without official interference. While the courts have handled a few cases dealing with perceived censorship, there is no formal government mechanism infringing on the independence of the media. While NHK is a public broadcasting service, it stills enjoys freedom from interference in its reports. In 2007, there was some attempt by politicians to influence NHK´s reports on the North Korea issue, but this was successfully challenged.

Informally, however, media organizations have hesitated to take a strong stance against the government or to expose political scandals. Membership in journalist clubs has offered exclusive contacts. Established media members have feared losing this advantage, and have frequently taken nonadversarial opinions, although differences between major newspapers’ standpoints can be identified.

The televisual media are required to be independent at election time, because the Federal Electoral Institute exerts strong supervision over the entire electoral process. Political parties have a degree of guaranteed access to television, with limits being imposed as well, and the process is organized by the IFE. Parties are not allowed to book television air time directly. Government access to the media is also restricted during election campaigns. Outside election campaigns (the dates of which are clearly defined), the government does not control the media. Partly because of its current minority status, the government probably needs the media – particularly the television broadcasters – more than the media needs the government. However, the dominant media companies are usually more interested in business than in politics, and use their power to push for commercial rather than political goals. This situation is somewhat dependent on the current political environment. The media has been essentially pro-government in Mexico for many years, mainly because Mexico’s conservatives have consistently won national elections. There has thus been no basis for a major clash of culture or ideology. If the closely fought 2006 elections had been won by the leftist opposition party, then it is likely that government-media elections would have been tense.
Mexico’s national press is free and independent of government influence. However, investigative journalism is not effectively protected by the government, which has been unable to shelter journalists investigating on the topic of organized crime. Mexican journalists often find themselves on the front line of the war on drugs if they dare expose the links between state agents and gang members. Many of them have given up investigations on this issue. Thus, while the government has not interfered politically in the media, the Mexican state has not been capable of guaranteeing journalists’ safety as they perform their job in the areas of highest public concern.

After a long tradition of subordination to the government of the day, legislation (Law 17/2006) on the state public radio and television service has transformed Radiotelevisión Española into an autonomous corporation that guarantees neutrality and objectivity vis-à-vis the central government, with a reinforced oversight role for the Spanish parliament and the introduction of an independent audiovisual authority. From 2008 to 2010, despite the rapid political weakening of the Zapatero cabinet as a consequence of the economic crisis, the incumbent government respected this institutionally protected independence; an attitude which contrasts with the direct influence exerted by some regional and local governments over subnational public radio and television networks.
Notwithstanding this, and with regard to political intervention in private broadcasting operations, it should be noted that the central government passed a decree law in August 2009 to license paid DTT services (oriented basically to the broadcast of pay-per-view Liga and Champions League football matches). This regulation was implemented against the legal advice of the consultative Council of State, and was aligned closely to the interests of a newly created communication group (Mediapro) which is ideologically close to the socialist party. Ironically, as the company most deeply harmed by the measure was the much more powerful and also ideologically center-left private communication giant Prisa, several conservative media organizations wound up praising this new licensing regime. Finally, a complete regulatory reform of the audiovisual sector was made in Law 7/2010, which was passed without the support of the main opposition party (PP). Throughout the period under review, this party has maintained a concerted alliance with the most conservative private newspapers, radio and television stations in what has been labeled as the “strategy of confrontation” against the government.

Media freedom is guaranteed by the constitution. There is no censorship in Austria, and new media in the electronic and print sectors can be established freely. Limits to the freedom of expression in the media are defined by law, and the courts ensure that these limits are enforced. The most stringent limits concern the prohibition of promoting Nazism and any other kinds of racial or religious hatred.
The Austrian judiciary tends to interpret the freedom to criticize politics and politicians more narrowly than the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg does. The ECHR has struck down some judgments by Austrian courts because it assumes that politicians must endure certain kinds of criticism otherwise not permitted in cases involving private individuals.
The state-owned public broadcasting system ORF, which is the dominant broadcaster, is in a delicate situation. On the one hand, its independence from the government is legally guaranteed; on the other hand, the government plays a decisive role in determining ORF’s top management positions.

In principle, the independence of media from public authorities is guaranteed by a complete set of constitutional, legislative and administrative rules. There is not much more that can be done to improve the legal status of the press.
On the other hand, there is a long tradition of government interference in the media, and many presidents and governments of the Fifth Republic have been accused of manipulating or improperly using the media. There are several channels of influence, reflecting certain structural weaknesses of the media system in France.
The perceptible dependency of the media on public authorities derives from factors such as the lack of a strong tradition of investigative journalism (leaving to a satirical weekly, Le Canard Enchaîné, the role of leaking information that other journalists or editors do not wish to publish in their own papers), the deferential attitude of some or the excessive partisan attitude of others. Moreover, most newspapers are facing financial difficulties. No daily newspaper could survive without the multifaceted subsidies provided by the state; however, these aids seem to be given according to objective criteria and are not linked with political pressure. Having to cope with weak resources from advertising and publicity, combined with the challenge from Internet publications, the print media are in a difficult position, making them more and more dependent on the generosity and good will of the state or from wealthy private investors. These latter are tempted to influence the line of their newspapers; moreover, they are sometimes closely linked to powerful politicians. Under President Sarkozy, several cases of intervention have occurred.
The division between the national press, which is very much embedded in the Parisian political milieu, and the local press, which usually survives by avoiding any potential conflict or polemics with local politicians, does not contribute to the strength of the printed media. In conclusion, the lack of a strong civil society and independent private media business tends to weaken the fundaments of real independence of the media.
The situation is obviously different in television and radio, which has fewer financial concerns. The competition between the public and private sector tends to ensure a better balance of coverage and on the whole, radio and television act relatively independently. However, it is remarkable that in 2008 on the occasion of the reform of the sector, Nicolas Sarkozy reclaimed the power of directly nominating the heads of public media, a tradition that the presidents of the Fifth Republic had used in full since 1958, before the nomination power was given to an independent body in 1986.

The Portuguese media system by and large continues to conform to the criteria of media independence. However, as in the 2009 report, there continue to be increasingly worrying signs of alleged and/or attempted government interference with media operations. In September 2009, a popular television news program was cancelled. That news program (Jornal Nacional de 6ª– JN6, of the private TVI channel) had been very critical of the prime minister, and had been leading high-profile investigations on an alleged corruption scandal dating to the time when the prime minister was minister of the environment, in 2001. Moreover, the program had a very polemic style of reporting, which many disliked.
The prime minister publicly expressed criticism of this news program several times in 2009. In April of that year, he accused the program during a prime-time interview of being “a travesty of journalism” and of heading a “manhunt.” In February 2009, during the Socialist Party congress, he alluded to “dark campaigns” against him, in which the media were included. Likewise, he stated that the government was chosen by the people, not the heads of TV channels, a reference widely interpreted even then as being aimed squarely at TVI.
The news program was due to return to the airwaves after the summer break on September 4, 2009, and had been promoted by its anchor heavily in the preceding days. However, it was cancelled on the day before airing (September 3), under circumstances that still today are not entirely clear. The TV channel said it decided to cancel the program to reinforce the homogeneity and consistency of its evening news program throughout the week (the Friday program was a ratings leader in its time slot, but it did also have a very grating and polemic style). However, the decision was not well received amongst the channel’s journalists – the news editorial team resigned, and the channel’s journalists signed a petition repudiating the cancellation. While the prime minister and the Socialist Party denied any involvement in the decision, other parties cried censorship, and argued that the TVI board’s decision was influenced by the government’s opinion.
These allegations gained further traction in early 2010. In June 2009, Portugal Telecom (in which the Portuguese state retains a “golden share” as well as some influence) was involved in a quickly aborted attempt to purchase TVI. At the time, the prime minister stated in parliament that he did not know of this deal, and two days later said the government would veto this purchase through use of its “golden share.” However, a corruption case involving a close ally of Sócrates was to reopen allegations of government interference, giving rise to allegations that Sócrates not only knew of the deal but it was the government that had orchestrated the deal to buy TVI in order to silence its criticism. No case was opened against Sócrates, who has strenuously denied the allegations. However, opposition parties see this as further evidence of attempts to control the media, and a poll carried out in March 2010 showed that the majority of Portuguese citizens thought the prime minister deliberately lied to parliament. In an unprecedented move, the opposition parties voted for the opening of a commission of inquiry to investigate the prime minister’s involvement in the PT/TVI deal. This commission, which began its work in April 2010, was the first in the history of Portuguese democracy to question a sitting prime minister.

According to Articles 28, 29 and 30 of the constitution, the media is free and independent. Freedom of the press can be restricted only by law. Although Article 29 of Law No. 3984 restricts media owners’ shareholder rights, media owners in fact have substantial investments in other sectors, including energy. The presence of such economic and financial relations between the government and media owners through processes of privatization, public procurement, and the issuing of concessions, privileges and royalties undermines media independence. Members of the Supreme Board of Radio and Television are selected by the Grand National Assembly, rendering it difficult for the body to exercise the provisions of Law No. 3984 to secure “impartial” and “fair” broadcasts. Additionally, the government appoints the general director of the public broadcast institution, the Radio and Television Institution of Turkey (under Law No. 2954 on Radio and Television of Turkey). Therefore, the government is able to exercise a relative tutelage over the administration of the public media. The pro-government tone of TRT, the public radio and television company, has recently intensified, especially with respect to news and idea-focused programming. However, it has also been differentiating the content of broadcast by providing a range of programs, including a separate channel for Kurdish language broadcasts.
Political pressures on the media and legal uncertainties affect the freedom of the press in practice. Media companies are split into “proponents” and “opponents” of the government. It is argued that the government has facilitated the establishment of “proponent” media organizations by providing easy credit, and also by indirectly threatening “opponent” media owners by opening tax-related procedures against them. The prime minister and senior political leaders have asked the public as a whole, the members of his party and governmental institutions not to buy, not to read the newspapers and not to watch the television channels owned by the strongest media group, the Doğan Media Holding.
As to other examples of political pressure or intervention, in the period under investigation the prime minister has exhorted media owners to interfere with editorial independence, to tell columnists how and what to write, and to take responsibility for the writings of their employees. The government and the ruling party have also retained the ambiguous clause 301 of the Turkish penal code, allowing court cases against critical intellectuals, journalists and academics to go on. The prime minister bluntly interfered in the transfer of ownership of a large-scale television channel (ATV) and an influential newspaper (Sabah), seeking to assure media support for his government.

Though the state-owned media offers news coverage in a pluralist fashion, the incumbent government nevertheless retains channels through which to influence the content of media coverage. For example, the government appoints the board of directors of ERT (Hellenic Radio and Television), which is a large public organization overseeing all state-owned TV and radio stations. The Secretariat of Information - Secretariat of Communication fully controls the finances of ERT, which is funded by the general population in the following compulsory manner: All legal persons and house or apartment occupiers who use electricity (i.e., practically everyone) pay a compulsory fee to ERT, which is included in their electricity bill. Bills are issued bimonthly by the country’s single, state-owned energy company, the Public Power Corporation (DEI). In other words, the state-owned media tax the population as a whole, but such media are at the disposal of the governing elite. Through its control of the ERT governing body, the incumbent government appoints and dismisses all ERT directors. In that respect, there is insufficient protection against potential government influence, although compared to the past (the 1980s and the early 1990s) the government has loosened its grip over the electronic media.

The political affiliation of the media in Hungary is rather strong. This applies to both public and private media. The government’s influence on the media was limited by the fact that Fidesz succeeded in securing a strong position in the public media even before the parliamentary elections in April 2010. The Gyurcsány government infringed upon the independence of media by openly boycotting pro-opposition media. The Bajnai government took a less partisan approach.

In any examination of the media system in Italy, a distinction must be made between printed media and television. Printed media (newspapers and weekly publications) are quite pluralistic both in terms of ownership and of ideological orientation, and the influence of the government is limited. More relevant in this domain is the influence of economic groups.
The influence of the government is more keenly felt in the television sector. The state-owned broadcast system has traditionally been organized along a “consociational model,” which provides for representation of all major political positions. The influence of the government is in part counterbalanced by the role of the parliamentary committee (“Commissione parlamentare per l’indirizzo generale e la vigilanza dei servizi radiotelevisivi,” established by law in 1975) tasked with overseeing radio and television, which is always chaired by a member of the opposition party. The serving government typically has the strongest influence on the news services of the first channel (and its director is typically a person “friendly” to the government). Other channels are closer to the opposition.
All in all, there is strong evidence that Italy media independence is being damaged. Its rank in the Reporters Without Borders Press Freedom Index has continued to fall, reaching 49th place (worst of the six European Community/European Union founding countries) in 2009. Since 2008, Freedom House has listed Italy as the only “partly free” country in Western Europe, with all others receiving the “free” rating. Mafia actions against journalists, the government’s draft wiretap and “gag” law, and agitation and legal action by Berlusconi against journalists and their media employers have all strongly interfered with the independence of the media.

Under the Fico government, the Slovakian media’s independence deteriorated significantly. The Fico government took a critical stance towards the media and routinely accused them of partisan bias in favor of the opposition. It staffed the Council for Broadcasting and Retransmission, which supervises public TV and radio stations, with political loyalists and interfered with public broadcasting programming. The new Press Act, which went into force in June 2008, introduced restrictions on media coverage of issues such as war, cruel acts or drugs, thereby limiting access to information. The Press Act also put the government rather than the courts in charge of ensuring compliance with these restrictions, thus increasing government influence on the media. Finally, the Act further expanded the media’s obligations to publish counterstatements irrespective of the truth of the original reporting and without editorial intervention. Several cabinet members sued the press for libel, thus raising concerns that the financial risks associated with libel suits may lead to self-censorship. In the ranking of press freedom provided by Reporters without Borders, Slovakia’s position fell drastically from rank 3 in 2007 to rank 44 in 2009.

In the 2009 Press Freedom Index, published by Reporters Without Borders, Korea placed 69 out of 175 countries. This represented a fall of 22 places compared to 2008, and was one of the lowest rankings among OECD countries. Korea was also put on the list of “countries under surveillance.” The report criticizes the prosecution of journalists from the MBC program PD Diary. Journalists were accused of exaggerating the danger of mad cow disease, an issue that triggered massive protests against the import of U.S. beef in 2008. The makers of the program were acquitted of prosecutors’ accusation that they had “defamed government officials and obstructed businesses involved in importing U.S. beef.”
Another case criticized by the report is the arrest of Internet blogger “Minerva” (whose real name was Park Dae-sung), “on the grounds that he affected ‘foreign exchange markets’ and the ‘nation’s credibility’ through his posts on the financial crisis in a discussion forum.” He too was acquitted of the charges against him.
In April 2009, South Korea’s Act on the Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and User Protection was amended. The amendment requires all websites with at least 100,000 (previously 300,000) visitors per day to identify their users by their real names, a change that was criticized as a limit on the freedom of speech.
The government was also accused of replacing or influencing the replacement of chief executives of several major public broadcasters and media companies, including the Korean Broadcasting System (KBS), Korean Broadcasting Advertising Corporation, Arirang TV, Sky Life and Yonhap Television Network (YTN). Some of the new appointees are believed to be supporters of the government. Amnesty International also reported that “protests against the appointment of the new YTN President Ku Bon-hong, a former aide to President Lee Myung-bak, resulted in Ku Bon-hong suing 12 trade union journalists and firing six journalists for ‘interfering with business.’” There are also accusations that the early replacement of the president of broadcaster MBC in February 2010 was politically motivated. MBC labor unions went on strike in early April 2010 to protest the change.