IREX
International Research & Exchanges Board

Media Sustainability Index (MSI) - Europe and Eurasia

MSI Europe & Eurasia 2008

E-mail this pageE-mail this page

 

Romania

Introduction

Overall Country Score: 2.61

Romania has followed a variable evolution since the fall of communism. Economic reforms were slow, and democratization met numerous obstacles. Political life was dominated by the social democrats (the descendents of the former communist party) until 1996, when a center-right coalition came to power. In 2000, the former communist Ion Iliescu and his Social Democrat Party (PSD) returned to power. Press freedom became a problem despite economic growth. Many in the media felt that media freedom was particularly affected by the approach of the prime minister, Adrian Nastase, who tried to control the media using both political and economic leverage. During 2003 and 2004, media freedom in Romania became a growing concern for international organizations.

At the end of 2004, Nastase lost the presidential race in a dramatic run-off against Traian Basescu. A new center-right-wing coalition government was formed but it was a weak one due the limited support in Parliament. The coalition collapsed in 2006, the liberal prime-minister Tariceanu excluding the presidential party from the government and running a minority executive with the tacit support of PSD. As the Romanian constitution forbids president to sack the prime-minister or to dissolve the Parliament, a political stalemate was created with each actor trying to block the adversaries. The two main power-figures frequently clash on basic any political issue and harsh accusation are traded publicly between them.

Romania joined the European Union on January 1, 2007. Immediately after this important achievement, the political crisis reached its peak. The new anti-presidential majority in the Parliament initiated the impeaching of the president, despite the fact that the Constitutional Court did not find him guilty of violating the Constitution. A referendum in May 2007 to approve or reject the impeachment led to a landslide victory of the president.

Despite the political situation, the 2006/2007 MSI was an optimistic one, with slight increases in overall score. Our experts considered that a weak and divided government was not able to implement strategies against media, as was the case before 2004 elections. This year’s focus group reflected a gloomier mood, with scores significantly decreasing for four out of five objectives. One can be justifiably surprised by this evolution. After all, 2007 was the EU accession year for Romania, the climax of a major political process which focused public and political attention for at least eight years (since the start of negotiations back in 1999). The negative expectations in the media are not an exception but rather a symptom of a broader confusion. Ironically, Romania witnessed decreases in other domains too after the EU accession. The anti-corruption policies were endangered by a powerful counteraction from political parties, the financial stability was jeopardized by fiscal irresponsibility, and the overall quality of the act of governance decreased. Some scholars already have spoken of a “Romanian post-accession syndrome.” The major reforms undertaken in the last years were pushed forward and implemented under European Commission pressures. EU conditionalities worked as much as the threat of delaying accession was credible. Once a full-fledged EU member, Romania’s relation with the Commission changed. It is obvious now that the major reforms pushed forward by the Commission enjoyed neither a genuine political will nor a critical mass within the Romanian public. The new anti-corruption office created with EU support is constantly harassed by the Parliament after it started prosecuting important politicians. It is only an apparent paradox that MSI scores decreased after Romania’s accession. In fact, EU acted for years as an ally for Romanian journalists and as indirect guardian of media freedom. Yearly Commission’s reports underpinned the situation of media and obliged the Romanian governments to act. Important progresses were made under EU pressure, from the regulation of state paid advertisement to scrapping calumny offences off the Penal Code. Once a full member of EU, the leverage of European Commission over Romanian government decreased and a return to old habits was visible.

A second important factor which explains the pessimistic mood of this report is the spiraling political conflicts. The “verbal guerilla” between the prime-minister and parliamentary majority on one hand and the directly elected president on the other hand split the media into a vocal anti-presidential side and a moderate pro-presidential one. Objective journalism became nonsense when anyone is considered to be either one of Basescu’s pawns or an anti-Basescu mercenary, based on the simple approval of disapproval of one if his acts. The public television is a clear victim of the new situation. Since the crisis deepened, the public outlet became a higher stake and the politicians dropped any preoccupation for face-saving and named a top politician to head the public television.

Meanwhile, media themselves have to deal with the same systemic threats pinpointed last year: the ownership concentration and the proliferation of outlets without clear legitimate economic resources to support them. Professional ethics also remain a problem; although some ethical codes were adopted, they are not properly implemented. Public debates on sensitive issues, such as the relation between journalists and owners, represent important steps forward, but they have yet to produce practical effects.

Objective 1: Freedom of Speech

Score: 2.62

The National Council of Broadcasting (CNA) controls broadcast licensing and nominally is an autonomous body subordinated to the parliament. The 11 CNA members are appointed by the president, the government, and the parliament. Our panelists expressed their doubts that this mechanism ensures autonomy of CNA. Cezar Ion, the director of editorial production department within public television says that “CNA is a sort of cooperative, strongly politically manipulated. The most recent CNA new comers have a perception which slightly touches horror about what is happening there.” Ciprian Stoianovici, editor-in-chief of the popular Radio 21 underpins this point: “CNA members’ selection is a political process and not a transparent one. And the politicization is stronger now than ever.” In 2006, the political factions in parliament were unable to reach an agreement to appoint new members to the CNA. Some MPs wanted to change the law to increase the number of members to 13 in order to overcome this deadlock and please all those involved. The former president of the CNA, Ralu Filip, protested and threatened to resign. His position being supported among most prominent nongovernmental organizations, this idea was dropped. Unfortunately, Filip died at the beginning of 2007. His vacant chair became the object of an odd political bargain. Since the president of public television resigned around the same period, the ruling National Liberal Party and the opposition PSD traded these positions among them in order to gain an advantage in their common struggle against president Traian Basescu. Our panelist Cezar Ion detailed this scandal: “There was a political bargain between liberals and social-democrats for CNA leadership versus television leadership. Nobody would publicly admit to the bargain but it was obvious from procedures unfolding in the Parliament. Because they did not trust each other, they delayed the vote for the whole summer and appointed interims to lead the institutions.” PSD appointed as a CNA member Valentin Nicolau, the former head of the public television, who had resigned among accusations of corruption and editorial interference formulated in a parliamentary report. He tried to compete for the position of CNA chairman, a move contradictory to the bargain made by his party, which traded this position for the control over the public television presidency (see the below discussion about television). Ion confirmed in our discussion this story: “PSD withdrew its support to Nicolau because he tried to run for the CNA chairmanship.” Nicolau resigned completely from CNA blaming that people there “are blackmailed and there are pressures made upon one institution which pretends to be independent.” 1

Panelists were also skeptical of the licenses granting process. They accused the lack of clear procedures. “The granting process is made upon CNA members’ whishes, none of them having expertise in the media field nor running at least 10 minutes a radio or TV station,” says Ciprian Stoianovici. Comparing with the last years, the panelists questioned more the monitoring and regulatory activities of CNA. Under the law, CNA is the guardian of public morality and fairness in broadcasting. It monitors the waves and intervenes by warnings and fines against the broadcasters that breach the rules. But our panelist considered its decisions as being biased depending on how powerful the different media owners are. “CNA gets some fixations on some TV stations. On the other hand, in some cases of flagrant infringement, the regulatory body turns tolerant, as a result of negotiations made by those who represent political forces within CNA” says Cezar Ion. Since the CNA interventions have impact on the media market, some panelists are discontent with its lack of transparency and accountability. George Ene, general-secretary of Romanian Press Club says that “the decisions transmitted by CNA are not supported by arguments, there is not a public justification.” Cezar Ion even believes that there are “negotiations on how the decision should be publicly communicated,” since they can affect the advertising contracts. However, some improvement has been noticed in CNA’s behavior as a public actor. It regularly advices broadcasters about public interest issues such as journalistic ethics, protection of children, correct use of Romanian language, etc. “CNA has a sanitary role which I appreciate,” says Ciprian Stoianovici, although he is very critical with other aspects of the institution’s activity. Editor-in-chief of a local newspaper and a local radio station, Catalin Moraru considers that “CNA’s activity improved compared with the past. At least you can change their decisions without one setting themselves on fire in front of their building.”

Market entry for a media business is no different than for other businesses, and panel participants agreed that this was not a problem for Romanian media. However, Razvan Martin, program coordinator for Media Monitoring Agency, underlined the point he made in our last year’s report: “only commercial companies have the right to get TV-radio license.” Thus the NGOs and community-based organizations are excluded from registering broadcast activities. But this is not an effective barrier in practice for powerful organizations. The Romanian Orthodox Church obtained licenses for a network of radio and television stations in the Eastern region of Moldavia, under the initiative of Bishop Daniel. The Church exercises the control trough some intermediary commercial companies. CNA encouraged this tendency by granting preferential treatment for church-controlled firms, as the late CNA president Ralu Filip publicly acknowledged. In 2007, Daniel was elected as Patriarch of Romanian Orthodox Church and expressed his desire to expand the local religious media network at the national level.

While the violence against media in Romania became less spectacular over the past several years, harassment continues. There were no direct attempts to assassinate journalists, but a number of cases occurred when reporters and cameramen were physically assaulted while gathering information. Razvan Martin is in charge of monitoring assaults against journalist within Media Monitoring Agency. He says “there were some violent attacks, especially sport related, around the stadiums. Media pressures made authorities to react.” In 2006, a cameraman with the public television was severely beaten by a soccer fan. George Ene expressed his outrage that “this man is free now.” Panelists agreed that the Romanian society does not properly value freedom of expression. Ciprian Stoianovici thinks that “the aggressions against journalists do not trigger public outrage, when it comes to public mentality we are very far away. We have the legal basis but we don’t have a real public exercise of freedom of expression, there is no public desire to protect freedom of expression. Some attacks are even greeted by the public.”

A sad bad example was given by the President of Romania, Traian Basescu. In the very day of the referendum over its impeachment, Basescu went shopping with his wife, driving his personal car. A pushy reporter from Antena 1 (a television station that Basescu considered unfairly attacking him) pounded the head of state with trivial question (what did you buy, what book is that you bought, how come you did not read it up to now, etc) . He confiscated her recording device and drove away with his car, with the device still turned on in his pocket. While leaving, the President said to his wife: “look at this stinky Gypsy.” He later gave back the recording device, but failed to delete his recorded words. As a matter of fact, the journalist was not Roma by origins. Basescu’s remarks were considered racist. This incident overshadowed his landslide victory in the referendum with over 70 percent. The National Anti-Discrimination Council publicly warned the President for discriminatory behavior. He attacked this decision in court saying the remarks were made in private circumstances for his wife’s ears only. The court rejected this claim saying that such a public figure does not enjoy the right to private life as ordinary citizens do. It was not the only aggressive remark Basescu made towards journalists. Razvan Martin counted “three or four such reactions.” The Romanian Press Club (CRP) filed a claim against Basescu for stealing the recording device. It is not clear under the law if the President in function can be prosecuted for such a felony. George Ene, working for CRP, says “the charges against Basescu are passed on between different institutions” and considers this to be a prove that institutions lack the will to act. Moreover, Basescu’s popularity made his supporters to consider he acted in self defense and to attack the journalist involved in this incident. Ene says that “after the ‘stinky Gypsy’ event, when we announced our action to denounce the theft, we received about 100 emails of outrage from citizens and only 10 supporting our action.” Iulian Comanescu, a media consultant and well-known blogger writing about media, considers that “there is a sort of aggression from political environment and the journalists don’t have the means to react.” Catalin Moraru sees a positive aspect in the functioning of judiciary, “which is more independent,” as was visible in the intervention of Antidiscrimination Council and the failure of President to reverse the decision in court.

Public media include Romanian Television – TVR (four channels), public radio (four channels), and the public news agency, Rompres. The president, the parliament, and the government appoint the boards of national radio and television stations, according to the 1995 law. While a public debate took place in 2005 over efforts to change the law, no changes were ultimately made. The NGOs working for media protection participated in these debates and endorsed the final draft prepared by Raluca Turcan, the head of Media and Culture Committee of Parliament. Razvan Martin who participated in this debates representing Media Monitoring Agency criticized the MPs for failing even to discuss the bill: “The draft law lies down in a drawer.” Another panelist, Cezar Ion, indicates a political motivation for blocking the draft: “It is blocked because is promoted by Raluca Turcan.” Turcan is a part of a dissident faction within National Liberal Party that split from the party because of its anti-presidential stance. In 2008, the public television still functioned after the old and outdated 1995 law. Ion, who works in an editorial top management position within the public television, thinks that the Board appointed according to this law “is set up based on political procedures. The law does not require any professional criteria; therefore none of the members is obliged to prove any competence in the field.” Stoianovici also thinks that the public television “is affected by the political environment. All political actors admit the laws are bad, but they use them all the same.”

Despite the good intentions displayed by the new elected power in 2005, the situation of TVR was characterized by our panelists as a depressing one. The former president of TVR, Tudor Giurgiu, who was appointed after the 2004 elections, tried to reform the institution, but the politically appointed board asked the parliament to remove him. Giurgiu resigned, but not before making the controversial decision to announce publicly the dismissal of Rodica Culcer, the editor-in-chief of the news department. Culcer had succeeded in reshaping the news, and the motivation for her dismissal was unclear. After Giurgiu’s resignation, a political bargain took place between the liberals and social-democrats. As we already discussed, the first party took over the presidency of the National Council of Broadcasting and the latter grabbed the presidency of public television. The appointee was Alexandru Sassu, a former MP and a top-management member of Social Democrat Party formerly in charge with communication strategies. The transfer of a spin-doctor from the party directly on the top of public television showed the lack of any scrupulosity from the part of Romanian politicians. Sassu was the first ever head of TVR coming openly and directly from the staff of a political party. Until now, the parties used to appoint apparently independent public figures close to their views or linked to their leaders with friendship ties.

The effect of this move was immediately felt by journalists working for the public broadcaster. The Anti-Corruption Department (DNA) started the prosecution of the Minister of Agriculture for accepting bribe. TVR obtained some images featuring the minister allegedly negotiating the bribe. The images were broadcast and this lead to a conflict between Sassu and the head of news department, Rodica Culcer. The public debate was hijacked and diverted from the spectacular bribe case to the supposedly unethical behavior of TVR which publicized images from a judicial dossier that was supposed to be confidential under the right of a fair prosecution. The Romanian Press Club intervened and stated that the TVR journalists did what every journalist was supposed to do after obtaining such information. But the Club also considered that TVR committed a mistake by not mentioning that the source of the images was DNA (although no one ever confirmed that was the source). This was enough for Sassu to punish Rodica Culcer. In order to avoid the law that protects journalists working there, Sassu simply promoted Culcer in a higher position within the newly created News and Sport Department and emptied the new position of any managerial or editorial responsibilities (Culcer started a law-suit against this decision). Instead, Sassu brought a new editor-in-chief, a journalist previously working for Antena 1, a private station owned by Dan Voiculescu, head of the minor Conservative Party and a harsh enemy of President Basescu. The effect was immediately visible. The journalists working in TVR publicly complained that they were forced to broadcast pieces of news about Conservative Party even though the images were covering two-day old events. The media monitoring reveals also an unbalance in the coverage of the different political forces.2

The political tensions were also transformed into tensions among journalists. Since the new team installed after 2004 brought new people, the “old guard” within TVR waited the moment to fight back. Once Culcer was marginalized, the editors she selected via public competitions were not anymore respected by the reporters. A spectacular conflict occurred between the editor Radu Gafta and the reporter Marius Zamfir. Gafta edited a piece of news by eliminating the name of a commercial bank specifically appearing in a story. Zamfir was upset and a fight occurred between the two. Zamfir simply beaten Gafta and the picture of editor’s swollen face covered the headlines in the next day newspapers. Sassu and the disciplinary committee of TVR later made the astonishing decision to sanction Zamfir just by decreasing his salary with 10 percent. Because he was considered close to Culcer, Gafta was removed from the position of editor for the main news bulletin. Cezar Ion, our panelist who works for TVR explained the benevolence shown towards Zamfir by the fact that “he was covering the government and Liberal Party. I think there was an intervention in his favor, but I don’t know exactly who made it.” Gafta resigned later from his job within TVR. At least three other pieces were later reported in the media as being stopped from broadcasting by the new editorial team, two of them covering corruption cases.

The Romanian parliament passed a law in 2006 that eliminated prison terms for libel. However, the Constitutional Court (CC) reversed this decision on grounds that the honor of a person cannot be defended only by receiving some money. The Court’s decision cannot be overruled, and it makes it compulsory for the parliament to maintain libel in the Penal Code. But until this moment, the Parliament did not take any positive action to re-introduce libel in the Penal Code. The situation creates problems of interpretation even for legal experts. Catalin Moraru says that the confusion has a positive side for the time being: “a person who wanted to sue us was advised by the lawyers to go under civil law, not the penal one.” All our panelists criticized the decision of CC. Razvan Martin says he downgraded the score because of this decision and he was approved by other participants.

Romania adopted a Freedom of Information Act in 2001. In 2006, a significant improvement was made to the law by including all national companies and state-owned firms. Nonetheless, the implementation of the law still encounters problems. George Ene says: “I still have the feeling that people paid by us don’t have the conscience to report back on their work.” Ciprian Stoianovici also considers that the “law is not helping me too much, because the information comes too late.” A new law for public procurements included in 2006 a special transparency clause making all procurement files accessible to the public. Ioana Avadani who contributed in drafting the new provision also observed problems in implementation: “The transparency of public procurements does not function. When the web-news portal Hotnews requested information on facilities obtained by three big companies from Romanian government, the same government that negotiated the transparency clause said this was not public information.”

Free of any legal restrictions, panelists did not consider access to international media to be a problem. There is no need for a special license to practice journalism in Romania. Some voices from the industry are requiring special certificates to be issued by professional organizations, but this idea was rejected until now. Avadani thinks that “from time to time, this discussion comes up about who is a journalist. While kept in a professional environment, without state intervention, it is a healthy discussion.”

Objective 2: Professional Journalism

Score: 2.21

Panel participants generally expressed dissatisfaction with the quality of reporting. Catalin Moraru says that reporting “is not fair and impartial. The professional quality of Romanian journalists is very poor. Journalism as a job has a very bad image. The quality of the reporters gets even poorer from one year to another.” Our group split in the subject between pessimistic and optimistic. Manuela Preoteasa sees positive sign: “I believe the trend is positive. The audience is moving toward quality information. The channels with good information are winning the audience, for instance Realitatea TV.” The station mentioned above is the first private all-news channel in Romania (there are three of them now). But Ciprian Stoianovici rejects the argument: “Realitatea TV is becoming a tabloid. The best sold newspapers are one tabloid (Libertatea) and one tabloid that pretends to be quality (Jurnalul National). About 80 percent of Romanian journalists are working in a tabloid related environment.”

Romania has many different professional codes developed by various organizations and associations. The journalistic community started a series of debates in 2005 to adopt a unified code, but little progress has been made to the date. The most prominent existing codes are those adopted by the Convention of Media Organizations (COM) and by the Romanian Press Club (CRP). Ioana Avadani, the informal leader of COM says that “the discussion related to merging the two deontological codes is on the agenda but nothing happened so far. It takes time for the idea to mature into action.” In 2006, an ethical code was imposed as an annex to the collective contract for the media industry, signed between a trade union and some owners’ associations, but this has had little impact over the profession to date.

Panelist Ciprian Stoianovici thinks “ethical rules are not known by the journalist.” But Razvan Martin considers this not to be a problem anymore: “they know the rules but they do not apply them, they are not reflected in the journalistic product.” A significant case happened in late of 2007. Bogdan Chireac, deputy editor and share-holder to the influential newspaper Gandul and a daily presence on television screens as a political analyst was accused by another newspaper (Evenimentul Zilei) to be the owner of a company that intermediated sales of communication equipment to the Romanian secret services. Chireac recognized the validity of information but rejected any link between his journalistic activity and his other businesses. Taking into account the influential public figure Chireac was in Romania, one can wonder if his company would have been granted contracts by the state without his involvement in media. However Chireac colleagues were taken by surprise by his involvement in the otherwise flowering business with the state and he later resigned from the editorial position accusing unspecified higher interests in attacking him. He continues to be a successful businessman and popular guest commenting political events. Our panelist Razvan Martin considers that “in Chireac’s case there were good reactions both in the press and in Romanian Press Club.” This case revealed the importance of dealing with the issue of conflict of interest from the professional and ethical point of view, as Chireac’s actions did not breach any legislation or conduct rules in place.

Our participants agreed that the biggest threat for journalists’ freedom in Romania is not anymore coming from politics but from ownership. They pointed out towards the involvement of rich businessmen in media, who have no immediate interest in obtaining profits but who use them as a political weapon. President Basescu attacked these people by naming them “media moguls.” Ciprian Stoianovici exemplifies the situation of Intact Media Corporation. Controlled by the powerful businessman Dan Voiculescu (via his daughters to whom he sold his shares) which is also the leader of Conservative Party, Intact was used for increasing his party’s potential for alliances (see the MSI 2004 and 2005 for details). Thus, the small party led by Voiculescu entered the Parliament and became a key player in forging parliamentary majorities. Voiculescu became one of the most vocal enemies of President Basescu and he led the parliamentary committee that initiated the impeachment of the President. Intact Media Group (owning the second commercial television station and second news television station as audiences, second newspaper as circulation) adopted a clear anti-Basescu editorial policy with Antena 3 (news television) organizing obsessive campaigns against the President no mater the discussed issue. Stoianovici says that “there have been so many journalists working within Intact company and doing anything else than journalism in the last two years. Intact performs press manipulation, the journalists working there are no longer journalists.” Manuela Preoteasa agrees that “they manipulate over there, but in the way they organize debates, not the reporting. The above overall conclusion is pertinent but there are some good journalists working there and the news reporting is acceptable.” Stoianovici maintained his initial point adding: “I don’t deny that many of them are doing their job honestly; I only criticize the overall product which is so obviously lacking objectivity.”

However panelists agreed that is the self-censorship that functions in Romania media, more than direct intervention from the ownership. Stoianovici maintains his pessimistic approach: “There is a general lack of ethics in our society, journalists are not threatened by the employers, there is no need for that.” Preoteasa agrees this time: “Self-censorship is related to ethical principles. When you are lacking principles, you become insecure. A huge uncertainty is developing and that is when self-censorship occurs.” The conclusion is supported also by Avadani: “The journalists are not forced into covering or not covering an issue, it is a voluntary choice.”

Although they do not consider that there are thorny issues are taboos for in Romanian media, panelists still observed some tendencies in avoiding various subjects. Iulian Comanescu observes that “it is difficult to write about corporations.” In 2007 Romania adopted a compulsory contribution to a private pension system. The companies running pension funds savagely competed for the newly created market and invested significant amounts of money in advertising. Cezar Ion links this money to the coverage of the subject: “Pension funds appeared in the media only at advertising level. Private systems’ risks were not reported.” But the panelists generally agreed with the conclusion drawn by Catalin Moraru: “There is not a single subject risky for all journalists,” so sooner or later an issue is going to be reported by someone.

Last year report observed a rapid increase in journalists’ pay. This tendency slowed down in 2007. Iulian Comanescu observes that the salary bubble started to break. The difference between Bucharest-based and local media is still sizeable. Panelists estimate pay ranges for entry level to editor at 300 to 2000 euros in Bucharest but 250 to 400 euros in the regions. The panelists still consider the wages for experienced journalists in Bucharest to be unrealistically increased after years of investment from “the moguls” in opening new outlets. “Several years ago we used to say that journalists are not well paid, now is the other way around,” Ioana Avadani says. A paradoxical situation was observed by Manuela Preoteasa: “Profitable institutions pay less than the ones losing money. The spine starts to bend. Local moguls are paying better than foreign investors.” Other panelists do not agree that is a connection between payment level and corruption: “The ones which want to be corrupt are so, regardless the amount,” Catalin Moraru says.

Panelists complained about the increased amount of entertainment in media products. Cezar Ion says that “news on TV is show on anything. They avoid political news and they excuse themselves by saying they only adjust to want the public asks for.” Ciprian Stoianovici agrees: “it is not the entertainment that overshadows the news, but the news that became entertainment.”

Panelists did not perceive the technical capacity of media to be a problem, given the broad access to high-tech technology in Romania. The only problem observed was that some media outlets, especially at local level, still use illegal software.

The market of niche publications is developed and continues to grow. Specialized magazines for IT, autos, women, fashion, and pets are strongly market-oriented and flourish. A special problem, however, is community-oriented reporting, as some cable television companies stopped producing local news. Stoianovici considers that “the financial media is the most functional one.” Indeed there are four weekly magazines and three dailies covering economic issues. One wonders if the Romanian economy produces enough news and subjects for such a diversity. Martin thinks that although developed in terms of number of outlets, “the niche media is poor in quality.”

Objective 3: Plurality of News Sources

Score: 2.88

After a slight increase in 2006, this objective decreased this year mainly due to the effects of the political crisis on the Romanian media. The panelists expressed a rather pessimistic opinion despite the increasing number of the media outlets in Romania. More than 17 Bucharest-based daily newspapers are on the market, and one can get three to four local daily newspapers in the main cities. The public television has four channels. A multitude of private broadcasters have established themselves, including all-news channels. Urban areas receive a variety of television stations via cable, and in recent years, more cable firms have penetrated the rural areas.

The concentration of the ownership in media is a problem. A special report3 prepared by Center for Independent Journalism reveals the tendency to build up five major media conglomerates:

  • Around Sorin Ovidiu Vantu. A highly controversial businessman that built his fortune through an investment fund that left 300,000 Romanians without their life’s savings, Vantu organized a media empire using various intermediary persons. He controls (without owning them on paper) 14 print outlets, three television stations (including the first news channel), a radio network, and the second news agency. Of note, Vantu has a criminal record for fraud and, under the Romanian broadcast law, he cannot own a broadcast license, hence his need for intermediaries.
  • Owned by Dinu Patriciu. The richest Romanian, a highly controversial businessman, and former politician, Patriciu is involved in the oil industry and currently being prosecuted for manipulating the stock exchange. He owns one newspaper and four magazines.
  • Around Adrian Sarbu. Five television stations (among them the most popular commercial one, Pro TV), six Bucharest based publications, two radio networks, a network of local newspapers, and the main news agency can be traced to Sarbu.
  • Around the Voiculescu family (see above for details about Dan Voiculescu). Five television stations, six Bucharest based publications, and a number radio stations are controlled by the family.
  • Ringier. A foreign company based in Switzerland, it is the biggest foreign investor in Romanian media, with three newspapers (among them the most circulated Romanian newspaper, the tabloid Libertatea), an economic weekly, and several magazines.

 Those five conglomerates control 45 percent of television market in terms of audiences (with public television controlling other 22 percent) and 90 percent of central media newspapers (in terms of circulation). Our panelists expressed concerns that this concentration left few possibilities and options open for journalists if they were to flee pressures from owners. Cezar Ion says; “those who did not join the politically-backed media outlets have a fragile job.”

Panelists agreed that people’s access to media in Romania is not a problem. The legislation sets absolutely no restrictions on access to foreign news. The only limitations are dictated by the prohibitive prices, but this could be overcome by the Internet, as Romania leads in Eastern Europe for broadband connections.

With the above described situation of public television (TVR) in 2007, the gloomy expectations of state-owned outlets expressed by the panelists came as no surprise. An insider when it comes to TVR, Cezar Ion says that “under the former president Tudor Giurgiu there was no intervention at all on the editorial side. Now the interventions are quite visible.” All the panelists criticized the appointment of Alexandru Sassu, a prominent party leader of the social –democrats, as president of TVR. Manuela Preoteasa: “Until Sassu’s arrival, the situation was relatively ok.” Ioana Avadani: “We are talking about a clear regress after Sassu’s arrival. The comeback of random, arbitrary will of superiors is obvious.”

The state-owned news agency is formally controlled by the parliament, but its market position is rather poor. The most important news agency is the privately owned Mediafax, which has been the only real relevant player on the market for the past decade. But a new agency, NewsIn has entered the market in 2006. Moraru, who heads a local newspaper and is highly dependable on agencies for central news, welcomes the new arrival. He says that NewsIn brought real competition and lead to a decrease in prices. But Stoianovici is not satisfied with the content provided by the new agency: “NewsIn rarely has news which Mediafax would not have. They move slowly and they are doing more mistakes. They still have to confirm they are reliable.”

All television stations produce their own news programs. Most radio stations do also. Martin is worried because “many local TV stations broadcast national programs, they are not producing any local information.”

Progresses were made in the last couple of years for more transparency of media ownership. Transparency by itself was not considered a problem anymore by the panelists. The Center for Independent Journalism developed the project Media Index—a Web portal with details about the official ownership of all media outlets, detailed down to individuals. The maintenance of the portal is currently not financed since it was developed as a donor-supported project. Ioana Avadani, director of the Center observes that “media ownership became a subject of debates in the press. It is discussed over and over. What is the consumer doing with this information? Usually nothing. Intact trust for example—its situation is well known, the political involvement of its owner is openly admitted, its content is heavy in Conservative agenda, but ratings did not drop, nor party rose in the polls. Why is the voter smarter than the viewer?” Stoianovici agrees that “progress was made in terms of transparency, but we still have a problem with the public reaction.” Catalin Moraru, local editor, still considers that “this progress was registered only at national level and less for the local media.”

Avadani considers there are some important issues uncovered by Romanian media, such as the situation of persons infected with HIV or the mental health. Also, Stoianovici expresses his worries concerning the raise of racist approaches stirred by the well publicized case of a Roma Romanian who allegedly killed an Italian woman. Italian authorities passed a special piece of legislation to make it easier to deport immigrants, which primarily affects the one-million-strong Romanian community there. The common attitude in the Romanian media was to say that “we” should not pay for something that Roma did. “We got rid of guilt by blaming it on others” says Stoianovici.

Objective 4: Business Management

Score: 2.76

Panelists observe two main trends: while Romanian media became more and more concentrated, they also tend to be more professionally managed. For Iulian Comanescu, “media concentration in five conglomerates is very concerning. The small press owners are taken over by moguls. On the other hand, it may be good for the media, because they get the needed financial force.” Panelists also raised concerns that media is not yet a business oriented domain. Although the investment in new outlets is impressive (new financial dailies appeared in 2007), few newspapers generate profit. Panelists restated the last year appreciation that 10 local newspapers at the most function as self-sufficient businesses, which is a small percentage of the more than 150 local papers. For Bucharest-based newspapers, several of the key papers appear profitable, such as Libertatea, Jurnalul National, and Evenimentul Zilei.

The print media still have problems with the Romanian Post Company, which handles subscription-based distribution. The company operates slowly and inefficiently. For direct sales distribution, the market is still dominated by the formerly state-owned company Rodipet, privatized in 2003. Nothing has changed after privatization, and Rodipet still delays payments, causing financial problems for many publications.

Generally speaking, the print media depend too much on sales. The situation is better for the large papers in Bucharest, where the advertising market is better developed. Here, the proportion of advertising in total revenues was estimated by our panelists at around 60 percent. Some local newspapers also reached this level. One of the most powerful local dailies, Monitorul de Botosani, led by our panelist Catalin Moraru, receives 70 percent of revenues from advertising.

There are many advertising agencies active in Romania. Among them there are the big international players: McCann Ericsson, Grey, Saatchi & Saatchi, Leo Burnett, BBDO, Young and Rubicam, and so on. Despite a large number of indigenous agencies, some 80 percent of advertising money is circulated among these international agencies. Preference is given to large media outlets with national distribution and to television stations. Ioana Avadani says that “all big international agencies are present here. The market is getting professional; the advertising agencies are working full speed.” But Cezar Ion still signals some questionable practices of these agencies: “the advertising market is not mature. The advertising agencies practice some forms of blackmail over the editorial teams: if you do this you have the budget, if not, I won’t give it to you.”

There are no direct subsidies for media outlets in Romania. In previous years, the MSI had identified state advertising as a form of hidden subsidy. After the 2004 elections, the new government passed a law as soon as 2005 to establish a more transparent and competitive mechanism to allot and pay for state advertising. As an indirect result, the total amount spent by the state on advertisements in 2005 decreased to 4 million euros, from 14 million in 2004. The panelists maintained the last year conclusion that the problem of state advertisement was no longer jeopardizing the media industry, despite an inconsistent and imperfect application of the law.

For the first time in MSI panels, our panelists expressed some doubts concerning the accuracy and honesty of market research in media. The Romanian Audit Bureau of Circulation (BRAT) was founded in 1998 as an independent, non-for-profit organization. Many advertising agencies have set the existence of a BRAT certificate as a precondition for allocating any advertising contract. Also BRAT developed the National Readership Survey (SNA), a research that approximates the total number of readers for publications and established the demographic data. Iulian Comanescu says: “the audience indicated by SNA raise some doubts, I’ve heard it is an industry’s ‘sold game.’”

Through the broadcast law adopted in 2002, the state interfered with the broadcast rating system by allowing the CNA to select a single rating system, which is currently in place. The system functions as a private operation and not all ratings data are freely accessible. Avadani considers that to be a problem: “The ratings’ measurement is for the first time challenged in public. We don’t have any way to monitor and evaluate the situation as we don’t have access to TV ratings, at least a minimum public data. This is why Dan Diaconescu always brags about its ratings.” He is the owner of a small television station with a tabloid style that each night says he has the biggest audience in the country.

Objective 5: Supporting Institutions

Score: 2.61

The journalistic community in Romania remains generally skeptical of joining a trade union. Although started as a good promise, the MediaSind union did not make significant progresses. In 2004, it signed a collective labor agreement for the media industry. The contract establishes the clause of conscience as one of the fundamental labor rights for journalists. It was reinforced for 2005 and 2006. Its membership remains generally unclear and few journalists recognize publicly their affiliation while the public presence of MediaSind is reduced as its executive president. Our panelists were asked if they are members or even if they heard about journalists being members of MediaSind. Catalin Moraru says: “I never heard about a journalist being member of MediaSind.” This opinion was shared by the most panelists, with the exception of Manuela Preoteasa, who declared that “I am a member, since MediaSind is affiliated to the International Journalists Federation I wanted their international recognized card and thus I was made a member of MediaSind also.”

The Association of Local Editors and Owners (APEL) gather the most important local newspapers in terms of circulation. At the central level, the Romanian Press Club (CRP) used to be the most powerful media organization, containing the most important media outlets and journalists. CRP made a self-imposed revolution in 2007 and at the beginning of 2008 and was radically transformed. The president of CRP, Cristian Tudor Popescu, started a process to separate the journalistic side of CRP from the media owners’ one. Thus was created the Association of Romanian Journalists (AJR) that undertakes from CRP the representation of journalists. At the beginning of 2008 our panelist Cezar Ion was elected the first president of AJR. He describes AJR not as a union but as a professional organization. For becoming a member one needs three year of working in media and two recommendations from two members of the Board. Another panelist, Ciprian Stoianovici, was involved in the creation of this Association. He thinks that “The Romanian Press Club will stop protecting directly the owners’ interests; it will remain the place where owners and journalist meet and negotiate.” The owners’ representatives from CRP started the legal procedures to create officially the Association of Media Owners.

Broadcasters have their own organization called ARCA, but it does not deal with editorial matters. There are some 40 journalists’ associations, but most of them are low-profile, inactive, or immature. Several exist only on paper.

The most important NGOs dealing with media freedom are the Center for Independent Journalism, Media Monitoring Agency, and the Romanian Helsinki Committee. They acted as an informal coalition and on numerous occasions defending press freedom. The group also kept international observers informed and succeeded in placing media on the agenda of international organizations. Since they were highly depending on international support there are concerns about their survival once Romania became a full member of European Union. The attention of international donors is moving towards other parts of the world. The panelists expressed their concerns that it was not created an internal critical mass able to deal with media freedom against the pressures of politicians and owners. Speaking about the creation of AJR, Ciprian Stoianovici says: “These NGOs that supported media freedom may die and we are not even grown up. They stood up for the role which professional associations were not up to play.” An old activist in the field of media freedom, Razvan Martin says that “this job became more and more frustrating and a lousy thing to do.”

There are 20 journalism university programs across Romania, both state and private. The average number of students per class is 60, so a huge number of journalists with a diploma flood the market every year. Our panelists working in top editorial positions are not impressed by the new comers. Ciprian Stoianovici: “I couldn’t care less if they graduated journalism or not.” Cezar Ion: “we have many students coming to work voluntarily but they are weak, from the point of view of the professional skills and are also poorly educated.”

After the closing of the BBC School in 2001, the CIJ remained the only short-term training provider. The CIJ provides courses for journalists and journalism students but also for students in related fields, such as political science, economics, and law. The Center also provides targeted assistance to media outlets. Visiting professionals from abroad (mostly from the United States) also provide instruction at the Center. According to the CIJ director, over 5,000 journalists and other media professionals, journalism students, and high-school pupils have attended CIJ courses and programs since November 1994.

Panelists agreed that newsprint and printing facilities are widely available. Most of the newspapers own a printing house in order to reduce their costs. A single newsprint factory exists in Romania. Its owner is a very controversial businessman and politician. The plant does not function in a customer-oriented manner, but it is preferred to the imported paper because it sells paper about 10 percent cheaper.

Kiosks for media distribution are, in principle, independent and free. The largest print media distribution company, the former state-owned Rodipet, is still inefficient, and cases when it generated financial problems for media outlets appear quite often. In 2006, the weekly financial magazine Saptamana Financiara wrote articles about the new owner of Rodipet, and the firm counterattacked by refusing to distribute the magazine that day.

Panel Participants

Ioana Avadani, executive director, Center for Independent Journalism, Bucharest
Razvan Martin, program coordinator, Media Monitoring Agency, Bucharest
Manuela Preoteasa, editor, EurActiv.ro
Catalin Moraru, editor-in-chief, Monitorul de Botosani
Cezar Ion, director, editorial productions department, Public Television, Bucharest
Iulian Comanescu, freelancer journalist and blogger specialized in media, Bucharest
George Ene, general-secretary, Romaian Press Club
Ciprian Stoianovici, editor-in-chief, Radio 21, Bucharest

Moderator and Author: Cristian Ghinea, journalist, Dilema Veche, Bucharest

  1. “Nici n-a venit bine ca a si plecat,” Gandul, June 28, 2007

  2. According to a study released by Monitoring Media, the ruling Liberal Party made up for 44 percent of the stories in the main newscast of the public television, compared to 22 percent last year. See

  3. Centrul pentru Jurnalism Independent. “Tendinţe În Reflhttp://www.hotnews.ro/stiri-politic-2250501-liberalii_fac_aproape_jumatate_din_stirile_politice_tvr1.htmectarea Presei În Presă (III).” Studiu de caz: Concentrarea proprietăţii şi a competenţelor în mass media românească ianuarie - martie 2007