Home
SubscribeMedia Sustainability Index (MSI) - Europe and Eurasia
MSI Europe & Eurasia 2008
Executive Summary
The 2008 Media Sustainability Index (MSI) represents the seventh iteration of this analytical report, first conducted in 2001. The analyses presented in this year’s version show a largely stagnant media sector both across the region as a whole and in subregions, with some specific exceptions. A period of settling in seems to have occurred over the past 2 years: the period of “color” revolutions is a receding memory, elections proceed apace, and efforts to reform media laws, develop sound management, and train the next generation of reporters continues. Some countries ensure there is little real competition in elections, that civil society is weak, and the media remain passive while under direct and indirect state control. Other countries are holding free elections and have witnessed a growing civil society but in many cases the issues have changed from democracy, human rights, and independence to relations with Europe, economic growth, corruption, and social welfare. Media reform and development remains on the agenda but the agenda is crowded and the battle for attention more difficult.
A. The Regions
Southeastern Europe remains the leader as it has since the first the MSI was published in 2001. The carrot of EU accession has helped pull along states like Bulgaria, Croatia, and Romania. Meanwhile, other states such as Bosnia, Montenegro, and Macedonia have looked to the EU and have been influenced by the potential of membership, even if it seems a distant possibility.
However, the MSI did witness a slight drop this past year in the combined regional average, from 2.65 to 2.45, driven by larger drops in states such as Kosovo, Bosnia, and Romania. In Kosovo, the panelists expressed frustration with a lack of progress in the media sector during a year in which it became apparent that Kosovo was heading for independence. However, little progress was made in the media sector during the year, perhaps in part because of the overwhelming attention paid to the status talks with Serbia on resolving Kosovo’s future. Bosnia meanwhile demonstrated that the media remained divided along ethnic lines. Debates over meeting the requirements of a Stabilization and Association Agreement with the EU reflected ethnic tensions and divisions, tensions which spilled over in part into the media, including a boycott of the public broadcaster by the government of the Republika Srpska. Romania meanwhile joined the EU yet witnessed drops, although the panelists pointed out that this occurred in several other areas after EU accession, including corruption, financial stability, and governance. As the panelists noted, scholars have begun talking of a “Romanian post-accession syndrome.”
Any downturn in the regional score should be taken in context however. The decrease in the regional average and in any of the countries is not large and one can expect fluctuations from year to year while still observing a positive trajectory. There is no clear evidence of a sustained decline in the region; the region as a whole, and all countries in the region, fall into the range of near sustainability. One can anticipate that the transition to sustainability might be the hardest stage to reach.
On average, the Caucasus appears largely unchanged during the past year, yet this hides the variations in the countries. While Armenia and Azerbaijan witnessed slight increases, the Georgia scores dropped more substantially following the political upheaval surrounding President Saakashvili, protests against his rule, a state of emergency, and subsequent elections in early 2008. The Georgia MSI showed that the treatment of the media by the legal system and the state worsened considerably and plurality of news declined due to the effects of the state of emergency. Whether this drop will reverse itself with stabilization of the situation or whether it reflects a new approach to the media remains to be seen. Regardless, the scores for the region reflect media sectors in a fragile state. A series of events late in the year damaged Georgia’s impressive progress and Armenia and Azerbaijan’s media remains stuck in an “unsustainable, mixed system.”
Russia and Western Eurasia represents a mixed group of states when looking at their media sectors. Ukraine has demonstrated progress over the past seven years while Moldova has remained stagnant and Russia and Belarus have seen backsliding over this timeframe. Compared to last year, the region demonstrated stagnation at its current level more than any movement in a positive or negative direction. Belarus remains a repressive state where independent media struggle to survive and where many media and journalists have resorted to moving outside the country to work for external broadcasters and other media outlets. Russia remained stagnant as it entered the election season and ensured that the media would not pose a threat to the ruling elites. Well-funded state media and private media close to the state demonstrated their sophistication, technical expertise, and, in many cases, business acumen, while independent media remained largely confined to newspapers and a few broadcast outlets. Ukraine witnessed a drop in scores, declining from 2.37 to 2.00. The ongoing political confrontation between two opposing political camps with one camp looking West and one East, did not allow room for the media to operate and develop. As the panelists noted, “Previous achievements in free speech and media independence look now fragile and unprotected; strong legal and institutional protection mechanisms to make them irreversible have not been yet established.”
Central Asia remains the least developed region of Europe and Eurasia in respect to media development. This year, the MSI added Turkmenistan to the MSI for the first time and it and Uzbekistan rated as the two countries in the region that can be characterized as “unsustainable, anti-free press.” Turkmenistan is slowly emerging from the isolation imposed by its recently deceased leader, President Niyazov, but any steps towards more openness or freedom are being taken very slowly, including in the media sector. Uzbekistan remains mired in a repressive media environment following the 2005 government crackdown on civil society and media. Little has improved since that time for the media.
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan continue to operate in the space between repression and tolerance. Independent media exist, critical coverage occurs, professionalism spreads slowly in journalism and management, and organizations do exist for advocacy and representation of the rights of journalists and media. Yet the limits are clear and the constraints, legal and extralegal, prevent substantial improvement. A market-based business model is difficult for media that are too critical as the economy is closely tied to the state and the overall economic level of countries such as Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan create an underlying obstacle to media development. Self-censorship is prevalent and when not practiced, legal mechanisms are used against journalists and media outlets. Judicial systems are not independent.
B. The Issues and Objectives
Regional variations discussed above have stayed remarkably consistent since the MSI started in 2001. Undoubtedly this reflects larger political and external forces at work. Whether it is the lure of EU membership for Southeastern Europe states that have witnessed progression or the lack of real transitions in Central Asia as authoritarian regimes remain in power, the results show that development in the media sector has been dependent on internal political and economic changes, as well as external events such as EU expansion or reassertion of Russian influence in Central Asia. Interventions by donors and implementers can have a significant impact in some cases, particularly when it coincides with external incentives and internal motivation to reform. However, Central Asia shows that such interventions cannot overcome entrenched political obstacles to change. This is not to diminish the worth of such interventions, but rather to show that the process is longer and donors must realize they are laying the groundwork for long-term change, not immediate movement from mixed to sustainable systems.
Looking at the scores in relations to the five objectives of the MSI shows interesting changes since 2001 and can offer insights to donors and policymakers on which elements of a media system are most amenable—or resistant—to change.
Professionalism is the weakest of the indicators, scoring a 1.75. Since 2001 it has risen from 1.52, a 15 percent increase. If one accepts the belief that quality journalism lies at the heart of a professional media sector, these results point to the difficulty faced in improving media sectors throughout the region. Yet, a 15 percent increase, on average, across the entire region shows that progress can be made. If one considers the difficulties involved in changing a professional culture—creating a new generation of professional journalists—then it is not overly surprising that this remains a challenge. However, there is a group of countries showing real progress according to the MSI: eight countries, seven of them from Southeast Europe, scored higher than 2 this year, indicating they are “nearing sustainability.” Three countries, Belarus, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan, scored below 1 or “Unsustainable, Anti-Free Press.”
The objective for free speech, encompassing the legal and enabling environment for media, has improved as an average across all countries only slightly since 2001, from 1.78 to 1.89 (a six percent increase). When one examines the changes in media law across the region during that time frame, the reason becomes clear. The development and implementation of media laws is a long-term process and one that requires the active support or acquiescence of the governments. While one can provide management and journalism training in a repressive environment and witness improvements, media laws cannot be passed or media law implementation improved without some form of cooperation from the government. Stable and repressive governments have not allowed this to happen in many instances, and this brings down the average.
Plurality of news sources has also improved little since 2001, scoring a 1.99 in 2008 as compared to a 1.86 in 2001 (a seven percent increase). Plurality encompasses many aspects of access to a variety of news sources which relate to the ability of citizens and the media themselves to access local news, national news, and international news from various sources. Many obstacles can hamper plurality: poverty restricts the ability of citizens to buy newspapers, access cable or satellite television, or use the internet, a commonplace comment over the years in the MSI in Central Asia. Governments can restrict the content on cable networks and terrestrial broadcasts as well as in newspapers and magazines as happens in states such as Belarus, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan. Poor business and technical infrastructure can restrict the distribution of news. Distribution of newspapers remains weak in most countries according to the MSI.
For media to become professional and independent, they must also be managed as viable and sustainable businesses, whether they are state, public, private, or community outlets. Sound journalism makes no difference if the outlet goes out of business. Sound journalism faces the danger of censorship, overt or covert, if outlets must resort to accepting money from political parties or inordinately rely on any one business to remain viable. The MSI has witnessed strong development of media management, an increase of 16 percent since 2001 to an average score of 1.81. In addition, in 2008, 13 countries score above a 2.0 in business management, meaning these countries are moving towards sustainability.
The Supporting Institutions objective demonstrates both the highest score in 2008 (2.01) and the highest percentage increase since 2001, at 19 percent. The supporting institutions objective touches on those institutions that support the professional development of the media sector in journalism, business, and management. It rates the viability and strength of advocacy organizations, training institutions, and distribution systems for print and broadcast, among others. Therefore, the relative strength of this sector in 2008 and the growth since 2001 is a cause for optimism for the development of the sector since these local supporting institutions, not donors and international media support organizations, are the ones that will be working over the long-term to develop their sectors.
2008 Score Charts
Plurality of News Sources
Click to enlarge.
