IREX
International Research & Exchanges Board

Media Sustainability Index (MSI) - Europe and Eurasia

MSI Europe & Eurasia 2008

E-mail this pageE-mail this page

 

bulgaria

Introduction

Overall Country Score:   2.71

While the MSI score dropped from the previous year, the score of 2.71 places Bulgaria solidly in the top tier of countries moving towards a sustainable and professional media sector. The MSI scores reflect a lack of forward movement according to the panelists as several areas stalled, including in media law reform and the activity of media associations in moving the sector forward.

Bulgaria’s EU membership, which commenced in 2007, brought hopes to the media sector. Many in the media believed that EU membership would bring stronger efforts to harmonize legislation and resume licensing of new broadcast outlets; more active self regulation and adherence to ethical standards; and more foreign investment in the media. But at the end of the year, panelists agreed that such positive change was missing this year, adding to the generally critical judgment they made on key aspects of media development in Bulgaria.

The highest scoring objective, consistent with previous years’ surveys, is the availability of multiple news sources and the free access to reliable and objective information. Additionally, the supporting institutions objective remained near sustainability, even with a slight decrease from the previous year. The key reason cited by panelists is the waning activity of professional associations of journalists and free speech advocates.

The business management aspects of the media sector ranked third among the objectives. The generally favorable economic environment inevitably benefits the independent media. Outlets generate more advertising revenue, manage to keep up with the development of technology, and are in a position to offer quality productions to their audiences. However, there were no substantial improvements in the management that contributed to the benefit from an improving economy.

Professionalism in journalism continued to be viewed critically by MSI panelists as it has in past years. The overall objective score of 2.49 reflects the lack of significant change. Most significantly, panelists noted that progress is still dependent on political and economic currents and not necessarily through the sector working to improve itself as self-censorship remains a serious problem.

The Free Speech objective, measuring the legal environment for media, is the lowest scoring objective in 2008. Panelists’ disapproval stemmed primarily from the practical halt of the licensing of new outlets. Regulatory blunders, the lack of an up-to-date strategy for the development of the media sector, and the obscure status of digital broadcasting all add up to a licensing standstill, which can only be solved through new legislative initiatives. Panelists were pessimistic about a quick resolution of the situation and the objective score is highly indicative of the dependency of the process on political and governmental forces.

Despite the slight drop in the overall MSI value, several aspects of the media sector have kept consistently high levels, showing mature progress in these areas and invulnerability to fluctuations in the political, economical, and social environment in the country. This holds true to the greatest extent for apolitical and unrestricted channels for media distribution, the virtually unlimited access of the media to international sources of information, and the free entry into the journalism profession. Another stable part of the Bulgarian media environment applies to the sources of newsprint and printing facilities, which are in private hands and apolitical.

Objective 1: Freedom of Speech

Score: 2.42

The Free Speech objective experienced a slight decrease compared to the previous year. Although Bulgaria has basic the legislative and social guarantees necessary for a free and independent media, their implementation is not efficient enough to ensure the sustainability and irreversibility of positive trends in media sector. “As a whole, Bulgaria meets the international standards as regards the legal guarantees for the freedom of speech and media independence,” said Petko Georgiev, executive director of BTC ProMedia. Yassen Boyadzhiev of Info Radio noted however, that “A mixture of political and economic interests is posing obstacles to the proper implementation of the laws. There are not enough effective legal measures against instances of violating the freedom of speech. Bulgarian society does not fully appreciate the freedom of speech as a fundamental right. The public is over tolerant of encroachments on the free speech.”

Bulgaria has legislation and rules by which the media exist and operate, but it turns out the regulatory framework fails to keep abreast of the rapid development of the media and to address the changing circumstances in the media sphere. This mostly holds true for the lack of an up-to-date strategy for the media sector. The strategy adopted a few years ago by the Bulgarian Parliament fails to address the key issues related to the licensing of new media outlets. This applies to both digital broadcasting and the framework for the development of regional broadcast outlets. Analog broadcast licensing is lagging behind seriously, while digital broadcasting is still largely uncertain. As Ivo Draganov, a media regulation expert, stated in the panel, “The Radio and TV Act is obsolete and the provisions in it are too general. Licensing was blocked for six years for political reasons. They messed up announcing the new National TV director general before the bid was over. It was a staged competition with the winner decided well in advance.”

The licensing process came under substantial criticism for being politicized. The existing appeal procedure for licensees is capable of postponing the enforcement of awarded licenses almost indefinitely. Any disgruntled applicant can block the enforcement of an awarded license for a long time and in effect delay the entrance of a new outlet on the market. Georgiev noted the political control over the process, “…both the Council for Electronic Media and the Communications Regulation Commission are controlled by the government and, to a lesser extent, of the president.” Krassimir Dimitrov of Mixx Radio in Bourgas argues, “The licensing procedures are overcomplicated, lengthy, and pointless. There are many ways to influence their implementation. Licensing is not unbiased and competitive. The procedure of electing members of the licensing bodies allows the awarding of licenses to be politicized; some members are appointed by the government. The process is not transparent—election criteria are vague and ‘flexible’.”

At the same time, new broadcasters are emerging through consolidation of ownership. With the acquisition of an outlet, the new owner takes possession of its license, and the radio station or cable channel gets renamed and reformatted. This process represents a way to get around the dormant licensing process and get new media up and running. In the process of consolidation in radio, local stations are acquired by the big national networks, which brings increased advertising revenue and the advantage of the big popular format over the remaining local competitors. With this consolidation, some of the developed regional media cease to exist and the rest are being weakened and lose their competitive edge. As Dimitar Lipovanski of the Association of Bulgarian Broadcasters (ABBRO) notes, “The consolidation of the market is practically obliterating regional and local outlets. The state has no clear view of whether it wants local media or not. The EU promotes regions and decentralization. But local media here are economic weaklings, and those that have been around long enough are fed up. Whenever a big player is buying, they readily sell.” The small media outlets are burdened additionally by transmission fees, along with their other liabilities to the state. Their revenues are affected to the extent that they cannot afford to improve their programming and technical equipment. As Dimitrov argued, “Compared to other industries, broadcasters are burdened by excessive fees, which are incommensurate with the market reality. There are different market conditions for different types of media; print media don’t pay fees and don’t require licenses.”

Petko Georgiev noted that violence and threats against journalists remains a problem: “Another alarming fact is the growing violence against people in the media by organized crime groups and individuals, and by those in power. The public is little responsive to such incidents, the professional community is reacting but that’s not enough.”

Panelists identified problematic issues related to access to public information. An Access to Public Information Act exists and journalists and public officials have increased awareness of the act, but obtaining public information is still far from problem-free. The requirement for those seeking information to justify their inquiries encumbers the process. Panelist felt that the situation in this area was worsening. As Yuliana Toncheva, a former member of the Council for Electronic Media noted, “The changes to the Access to Public Information Act are a setback.” Georgiev seconded her comments, “Access to public information is increasingly problematic. Although the regulations are in place, the practice is growingly negative. There are more and more institutions failing to comply with the law. The lack of serious penalties and public response aggravates the problem.”

On a different note, unconditional sustainability is achieved in terms of the unrestricted access of media outlets to international sources of news and information, as well as the free and unimpeded entry into the journalism profession. While the former is an undoubted accomplishment in the development of Bulgarian media, the latter involves subtle nuances worth considering according to some panelists. The ease of entry into the journalism profession in effect opens the door to people with inadequate experience and background required for fair and unbiased coverage of events. This reality also contributes to the excessive fluidity of the workforce and increases the need for continuous training.

The panelists also noted progress as regards the legal treatment of libel. It is a civil code issue and there have been no libel lawsuits over the past year. Additionally, Internet service suppliers are no longer held liable for the content created using their services. These developments, the panelists noted, provide hope for journalists engaging in investigative and entrepreneurial reporting.

Objective 2: Professional Journalism

Score: 2.49

The 2007 scores on Professional Journalism show no notable change from the previous year. Progress was noted in the level of technical outfitting of the media—an aspect that has been strong traditionally in Bulgaria. Facilities for gathering, production, and distribution of news are consistently within sustainability range and 2007 reinforces this tendency. There are no major obstacles to the media to update their equipment and raise the technical quality of the product they offer to the audience. Another are of improvement this year-though still lagging far behind likely sustainability - relates to self-censorship. Regardless of the slightly higher score, this indicator remains among the most underachieving aspects that substantially undermine the country’s media professionalism and consequently, public trust in media.

Daily news coverage is still comprehensive, however, and the panelists indicated that this has been maintained. The media cover key events and issues without giving advantage to some or suppressing others. Concerning the entertainment/information ratio in the programs of media outlets, panelists noted that the two types of programming are clearly signposted, and even though entertainment is clearly on the rise, it is not at the expense of news and information. The scores reflect the recent upsurge of entertainment programming rather than any negative effect on the news and information presented. As Dilyana Kirkovska of the Monitoring Directorate of the Council for Electronic Media noted, “Quality entertainment does not eclipse news. But entertainment in general is given a lot more time. When entertainment is coming in large quantities, the news and information get sidelined.”

Beat reporting was noted by the panelists as maintaining its role since last year. Specialized coverage in different beats, especially investigations, is well developed in the large national media outlets. However, it still fails to become a far-reaching characteristic of the whole media environment since small and regional outlets are particularly handicapped by their limited workforce with insufficient experience to develop into beat reporters. Lipovanski of ABBRO, speaking of regional media, noted, “Beat reporting is a rarity and money is the reason.”

Panelist did express concern over self-regulation in the media sector. The majority of outlets have subscribed to the Code of Ethics, but for a certain number of publications (such as those in the Monitor Press Group and the sensationalist tabloids), not signing the code is a conscious choice. Even those outlets, however, must see a point in ethical self-regulation, since they have turned to the Ethics Council for arbitration. With separate councils for print and broadcast media, the councils are impeded by the rising trend of joint coverage or investigations carried out by a print and a broadcast outlet. As Petya Mironova from the Ethics Council for print noted, “The practice of joint journalistic investigations is spreading. There’s such an agreement between Nova TV and the Novinar Daily. One story gets aired in the morning and gets printed word-for-word the next day. Neither bothers to cross-check and source it, and in case of a complaint it’s a complete mess as to which Ethics Council should be dealing with it.”

Fair, objective, and well-sourced coverage of events was not a quality the panelists could attribute to the media in Bulgaria. On this, panelists decried the quality of the workforce in journalism as new reporters with inadequate experience and background entered due to the outflow of qualified reporters to other higher paying jobs. While the panelists felt much of this weakness was from unintentionally one-sided reporting or failure to provide context by new and inexperienced reporters.

Additionally, the panelists discussed the concept of “editorial policy” and its limitations and found it also contributes to the critical assessment of this indicator. The narrowing down of priority topics by editors limits a reporters’ ability to carry out in-depth coverage and investigations. This is mostly the case in regional media, which are more exposed to pressure by advertisers or local powers. As Konstantin Markov, a media expert noted, “Quite typical of our media, something gets unveiled, looked at, and investigated, and eventually resolved. Nothing happens next—no attempts at a follow-up, no context.”

Pay levels continue to lag in the media and contribute to turnover and are an incentive for corruption. In addition to pay level discrepancies between media and other professions where an experienced journalist can make a larger salary, there is also a clear disproportion between pay levels for journalists in the national and regional media as well as between public and commercial outlets. These conditions continue to contribute to the workforce outflow into other industries, while even the sufficiently high pay levels fail to guarantee resistance to attempts at corrupting journalists.

Objective 3: Plurality of News Sources

Score: 3.04

The plurality of the media environment has been evolving steadily over the last several years. In 2007, this objective remains the most notable achievement in the country’s media development. Regardless of the minor decrease from the prior MSI survey, the major indicators are scoring high enough to suggest sufficient sustainability and independence from direct economic and political influence. Most citizens can access a wide range of news and information throughout Bulgaria. Print, broadcast and on-line media are readily accessible and largely affordable to most. Domestic and international sources are available. And citizens have choices between sources within Bulgaria itself, allowing them to see different perspectives.

There remains one troublesome component of this objective, however. Transparency of media ownership continues to lag behind. It is consistently the major deficit of the Bulgarian media environment, and together with the ever-intensive media consolidation, it questions the ability of outlets to maintain their independence from the economic interests behind them. The big media groups (such as Balkan News Corporation, which owns a number of television channels and radio stations; German WAZ, dominating the market of daily newspapers; and Economedia, with its big portfolio of business and other niche newspapers and magazines) are purely media conglomerates with no other non-media related businesses. They are focused on their media projects and related activities (printing, distribution, consulting). Nonetheless, the solidifying conglomerates are putting enormous competitive pressure on the small independent outlets. Panelists saw this as troubling. As Yassen Boyadzhiev argued, “Problems with the transparency of media ownership are intensifying compared to last year, given the obscuring in licensing and the consolidation of ownership.” However, Petko Georgiev of Broadcast Training Center cautioned against overstating the problems with transparency, “The issue of ownership transparency is overrated in Bulgaria. The national Radio and TV are the most transparent outlets in terms of ownership, but that doesn’t make them the least vulnerable to political influence. Transformation of ownership is not the only way to uphold business interest. Ministers, and the government in whole, have no problems pushing their own agendas in the private media.”

Panelists were critical also of the ability of the state and public media to reflect the diversity of opinions in society and serve the public interest. Bulgarian National Radio (BNR), Bulgarian National Television (BNT), and the Bulgarian News Agency have had their public status for a relatively short time. Their budgets are determined largely by the subsidy allotted in the state budget. The funding is not earmarked and can be used for improving the competitive ability of public media over commercial outlets. Public outlets’ news and public affairs and educational programs are objective and comprehensive, but their general managers are appointed by regulatory bodies, which elect members based on political quotas.

Panelists did note that money remains an issue for access, though less so than in the past. This mostly applies to using cable and digital television programs and household Internet service. Subscription fees for the new television services are not affordable for the whole population, especially in small and rural communities. Given that the services require new technical equipment, their availability is largely dependent on people’s income. Boyadzhiev reiterated this point, “Media diversity is still inadequate in many regions. Access to a variety of media and news sources (let alone the Internet) is very unevenly spread.” However, as Dimitrov of Mixx Radio noted, “Minority groups are probably number one in terms of access to satellite content.”

The low purchasing ability of the population also affects the sales of daily newspapers and high-quality print magazines. Readership surveys note decreasing sales of newspapers and magazines. Part of the audience is making up for the decrease with viewing the online versions of the publications, while others are turning to radio and television and cheaper publications. Citizens have unrestricted access to international media. Language limitations and costs for satellite are the only reason that the full advantage of the unrestricted access is still not achieved. 

Independent news agencies gather and distribute quality news for the print and broadcast media. No limits are imposed on using the agencies other than the subscription fees, which are sometimes unaffordable for small regional outlets and account for the still-inadequate access to these agencies.

Panelist also noted that media produce their own news programs and even cable providers are required by their license to produce their own programming. However, this is a financial burden for cable companies and often the quality of programming is compromised. Generally speaking, no obstacles block the production and distribution of in-house programming. As Ivo Draganov noted, “Almost every outlet has own programming; there are no problems here. Even the much-debated SKAT TV is entirely showing its own programs. The channel is known for its propensity for giving an emphatically nationalistic account of the Bulgarian transition. At the same time, two young reporters are making some of the most courageous investigations into corruption and wrongdoing.”

Conditions are quite favorable for the existence and distribution of minority media, including minority-language outlets. Each minority group (including Roma, Armenian, and Turkish) has its publications in their own language. However, their reach is quite limited-not because of special restrictions imposed, but because of the cultural and social integration of minorities. National public media, such as BNT and BNR, as well as commercial television and radio cover minority issues and their views, religion, and cultural activities in the Bulgarian language for a wider audience. BNR and BNT also air Turkish-language newscasts and programs. As journalist Violeta Draganova said, “The commercial outlets are often beating the public media on their own ground. The public media do not always live up to their purpose. The only example of minority-language information is the BNT Turkish language news.”

Objective 4: Business Management

Score: 2.63

In the process of shaping the Bulgarian media environment, media outlets continue to develop their business and management standards and clearly see them as a prerequisite for editorial independence. However, this objective has suffered a drop from last year as panelists raised questions about reliable broadcast ratings and the use of market research by media as key issues facing Bulgarian media.

Panelists noted the most significant decrease in the objectivity and reliability of broadcast ratings and circulation figures. In this aspect, Bulgaria seems to demonstrate a consistent problem: the perceived unreliability of the data. Until a year ago, there was only one peoplemeter system, the ownership of which was alleged to have conflicting interests in the advertising and media markets. Now Bulgaria has introduced an alternative peoplemeter system, managed by GFK, but it still fails to match the original, which continues to be favored by a significant number of advertising agencies and outlets.

The more important issue is the essentially lacking reliable figures on radio audiences, despite the rapid development of the radio market and the active restructuring in anticipation of new licensing. There are many regional and small outlets that are practically excluded from the surveys, and work with no awareness of their market standings and potential. Circulation and sales figures for the press are not provided by the existing (but de facto inactive) Audit Bureau of Circulation. Hence, the public and the advertising agencies have no reliable information regarding the circulation of publications. This contributes to a media environment developing in the dark, without clear indicators to help outlets position themselves more precisely and make the best of the audiences they attract.

Panelists noted that market research is mostly employed by the big national-coverage stations and largely ignored by small or niche outlets which need comprehensive data for more precise targeting of their audience. The most straightforward evidence is the current state of affairs on the radio market, which is now teeming with similar formats as a result of the recent transformation of ownership. Although research is slowly evolving, the volume of the audience still takes priority over finer segmentation.

The rapid development of the advertising market and growing size of advertising budgets fail to cover the whole media landscape. The big outlets remain most favored, as they are linked to the advertising agencies allocating the budgets. The big media groups, especially those combining radio and television, close the circle of distribution of advertising and small niche and regional outlets are often sidelined. Local advertising markets are underdeveloped significantly and the resources they offer regional outlets is inadequate. Krassimir Dimitrov felt that “Advertising agencies are not after the best coverage, but after discounts and friendly media.” Tsveta Nenova of Arena Media noted, “It’s hard for small outlets to make a living. Big media work with advertising agencies; agencies do no business with the local outlets. They prefer networks and transmission points.” Dimitar Lipovanski of ABBRO echoed this point, “On the regional level, media don’t work with agencies. It’s increasingly rare for a Sofia-based agency to buy local media.”

Petko Georgiev pointed out the issue of transparency in the advertising market.” The problem in this area is the lack of transparency in the advertising market, which is heavily manipulated in favor of a few leading national outlets. Ratings are quite questionable—the big advertising money goes in the same closed circle of advertising agencies, rating agencies, and outlets. The Internet media are still relatively independent in terms of attracting advertisers, but this is rapidly changing.”

No change is visible on the indicator of the share of advertising revenue in the total income of outlets. Print media count on revenue primarily from advertising as well as from subscriptions and sales. The situation is expected to evolve with the growth of free newspapers as advertising becomes more important. Ivo Draganov, a media expert, noted some other sources of revenue, “Outlets are generating profits, but their most cashable asset is influence—on the local and national levels alike. Revenue is generated mostly from advertising, but there’s sponsorship, hidden PR and publicity, which create dependencies. The advertising market is thriving, but the criteria for selection of outlets are still not clear enough.”

In general though, panelists indicated that many media are well run and do generate profits. Additionally, an adequate number of commercially driven printing facilities and distribution networks exist and effectively secure media production and distribution free of partisan considerations. Finally, panelists indicated that state subsidies pose no issue in Bulgaria. Private media are not subsidized

Under this objective, the highest scoring indicator (with an average score of 3.75) relates to the independence of private outlets from state subsidies. This aspect of Bulgaria’s media development fully meets the criteria of indisputable sustainability.

Objective 5: Supporting Institutions 

Score: 2.98

The institutions supporting independent media in Bulgaria have consistently advanced towards sustainability during the course of MSI studies dating back to 2001. In 2007, however, there was a slight reversal, reflected by the drop in ratings to 2.98. The objective manifests sufficient sustainability and independence of political and economic currents, but to a lesser extent compared to the previous year’s survey.

Despite panelists rating unrestricted access to printing technologies and the apolitical and uncontrolled channels of media distribution highly, they noted decline in some other key areas.
NGOs supporting free speech and independent media are clearly showing less involvement and activity than in previous years. Panelists noted the falling influence of NGOs on the media scene. The support and advocacy organizations brought together in the Bulgarian Media Coalition are less active and less successful in trying to modernize media legislation and represent the community and individuals involved in the development of the media sector. Backpedaling can be explained partly with the maturity of the media sector in Bulgaria. Media and free speech are arguably regulated and self-regulated enough with a Code of Ethics and the two ethics councils in place. Petko Georgiev argues, “We have a very bad situation and it’s getting worse. The Bulgarian Media Coalition broke apart in scandal, and no one wants to take responsibility. ABBRO is evermore shaping as a lobbyist structure—which, by the way, is great for its members. But there’s not one serious media NGO out there.”

Panelists criticized degree programs in journalism. Noting they were failing to meet the requirements of a modern media market, especially with regard to the “practical” experience obtained by students. As journalist Violeta Draganova argues, “Academic journalism education lacks quality, especially in advanced journalism degrees. Opportunities to study abroad are also limited.” The deficits of academic journalism education are partially compensated by the availability of short-term training programs. However, fewer short-term programs are offered than in past years, in part due to declining donor support. Panelists noted the discontinuation of subsidized, free training is a deterrent to media owners and managers investing in upgrading the skills of their staff.

Trade Associations continued to receive relatively high marks as effective advocates. As Georgiev noted of one of the most successful, “ABBRO is evermore shaping as a lobbyist structure—which, by the way, is great for its members.” ABBRO represents radio and television owners through advocacy before the government and supporting their business interests.

In contrast to the effectiveness and maturity of trade associations, the professional associations protecting journalists’ rights are far from this level of performance and assistance. Panelists felt this was the weakest component of supporting institutions. This reflects the still-inadequate activities of the Union of Bulgarian Journalists. Despite the entry of younger reporters into the organization, a large part of the UBJ membership is senior or retired journalists with little input and influence over the shaping of policies or professional trends. However, Petya Mironova, of the ethics council noted some positive trends: “In all fairness, the professional qualification of journalists is taken seriously over the last couple of years. Maybe the establishment of the National Council for Journalism Ethics served as an incentive for UBJ. The Investigative Journalists’ Club was restored, along with the International Journalists’ Club. And legal protection has always been a priority; the UBJ has always provided legal support to its members.”

Panel Participants

  • Roumiana Bachvarova, media pollster,
  • Assya Kavrakova, chairperson, Broadcast Media Ethics Commission
  • Danail Danov, Media Development Center
  • Petya Mironova, chairperson, Broadcast Media Ethics Commission
  • Dimitar Sotirov, executive director, Bulgarian Media Coalition
  • Krsssimira Krasteva, news editor, Nova TV
  • Luba Rizova, news editor, bTV
  • Boyko Vassilev, anchor, BNT
  • Maria Stephanova, chairperson, Council for Electronic Media
  • Violeta Draganova, Roma mainstream journalist
  • Konstantine Markov, chairman, Association of Bulgarian Broadcasters
  • Dimitar Lipovanski, director, Arena Media Russe
  • Tzveta Nenova, head, Russe Media Festival
  • Krassimir Dimitrov, manager, Glarus Radio Bourgas
  • Petko Georgiev, ProMedia
  • Juliana Toncheva, media expert and former spokesperson, The Council for Electronic Media
  • Ivo Draganov, TV documentarian
  • Jassen Boyadjiev, director, Info Radio
  • Dimitrana Vetova, media reporter, BTA

Moderator and Author: Rumyana Bachvarova, consultant, Market Links Research and Consulting