International Research & Exchanges Board

Search:
 

MSI Europe & Eurasia 2009

 

Executive Summary

The 2009 edition of the Europe and Eurasia Media Sustainability Index (MSI) reveals a mixture of progress and regression in the region. On the one hand, measures for business management were mostly up compared to last year; on the other, additional countries joined the ranks of those showing deteriorating scores since the baseline study in 2001. The Southeastern Europe and Caucasus sub-regions suffered losses overall, while Russia and Western Eurasia gained, as did Central Asia to a certain degree.

This year’s study also shows how growth is fragile in the media sector, particularly in Objective 1, freedom of speech. While a government’s commitment to a free media should not hinge on the quality of journalism present, biased reporting and polarization in the media can often be used as a motivation or justification for government antipathy toward a free press. Unfortunately, Objective 2, professional journalism, is the worst performing objective on average across the region. Objective 5, supporting institutions, the strongest objective in the region since 2002, fell overall this year. The change can be explained by reports from many countries of polarization and competition that preclude cooperation, coupled with difficulty achieving sustainability in the face of decreased international donor support.

IREX does not provide exhaustive analysis of regional, sub-regional, or individual country developments in the chapters that follow. The MSI is designed to serve as a summary of overall developments and a starting point for local media practitioners, international media development workers, academics, and others for further research. IREX intends for the results of the Media Sustainability Index to serve as one tool in the conversation about media development and to support advocacy efforts aimed at improving media ability to inform the public in the countries under study. To that end, IREX provides all previous editions of the Media Sustainability Index and spreadsheets with combined scoring data on its website, www.irex.org/msi.

Developments in the Sub-Regions

Observers should use a level of caution when assessing averages and trends of the sub-regions within Europe and Eurasia. Sometimes close neighbors, such as Ukraine and Belarus or Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan, are heading in opposite directions. Nonetheless, using sub-regional groupings can be a convenient way to focus attention on developments and trends, contrast performance to highlight opportunities or threats, and/or identify problems or successes.

Southeastern Europe as a whole suffered decreases in all objectives for the second year in a row. Particularly noteworthy were the setbacks in Objective 1, freedom of speech; Objective 2, professional journalism; and Objective 5, supporting institutions.

Political turmoil caused Macedonia to return the largest loss in both Southeastern Europe and the whole region. Its overall drop of 0.57 reflects serious problems that will likely impact the development of its media for some time. For the past few years, Macedonia scored solidly in the “near sustainability” category, even though it had lost some ground recently. However, the fall to 1.71 sets it back into the “unsustainable, mixed system” category. Panelists described a situation in which both the government and the media abandoned commitments to a free press, objectivity, and professionalism as a political expedient. This situation highlights the difference between “sustainability” and “near sustainability.” The Southeastern European experience is showing how difficult it can be to achieve the kind of development necessary to resist regression in a very short period of time under political or other pressures.

While Macedonia may be the most striking example of media fragility in southeastern Europe, it is not alone. Croatia is in danger of falling below its baseline scores after a few years in a row of decreasing assessments by panelists there. From its high in 2005, when it was showing nearly 25 percent growth from 2001, it is now at only 1 percent. More troubling is that only Objective 3 (plurality of news) and Objective 5 (supporting institutions) contribute to net positive growth. Objective 1 (freedom of speech), Objective 2 (professional journalism), and Objective 4 (business management) all received lower scores this year than in 2001. Panelists expressed shock at the assassination of publisher Ivo Pukanić, and certainly that contributed to the lower score. But, as poor a sign that was, the Objective 2 score now stands at 2.00, down from 2.50 in 2001. Panelists blamed the small size of the Croatian market that squeezes out “serious” news sources in favor of sensational news outlets.

Bosnia also has demonstrated difficulties moving ahead in recent years. Bosnia is still the leader in improvement since 2001, with an overall increase in score of 68.9 percent. However, this is down from the 2006/2007 study, led by decreased scores for the professional journalism and freedom of speech objectives. Panelists noted that the small decrease in freedom of speech is mainly due to lingering ethnic divisions in society. The fall in professional journalism was summed up by one panelist, who said, “We have to admit that our journalism is preoccupied by subjectivism.”

Likewise, Montenegro still shows an improvement of 35.7 percent since 2001, but the 2006/2007 scores showed nearly 60 percent growth. Panelists there decried the poor implementation of recent legislative changes, high damages awarded in libel suits, poor adherence to journalism ethics, and lack of sophistication in reporting.

European Union member Romania also suffers from stagnation in the media sector and has only managed an increase in overall score of 8.2 percent since 2001. Politicization of the media and a kind of cynicism by politicians about the role of media in society culminated in July 2008, with a Senate measure designed to force broadcasters to air “good” and “bad” news equally. Fortunately, the law was not enacted in the end.

The Caucasus returned overall negative scores as well. Armenia remained more or less the same, and has scored in the upper half of an “unsustainable, mixed system” since IREX first studied its media in 2001. Developments in Georgia and Azerbaijan, however, brought down the regional score.

Azerbaijan was not much of a surprise, as development there had never been significant and the government has consistently made a concerted effort to control information and maintain its grip on power. Continued jailings—thought to be perpetrated by the government—of critical media professionals and harassment of journalists make journalism a very difficult profession. Also this past year, the government took further steps to decrease the plurality of news sources by banning the use of domestic FM frequencies by foreign broadcasters, such as Radio Free Europe, Voice of America, and the BBC.

Unfortunately, Georgia also took further steps backward again this year after peaking in 2006/2007. Especially troubling is the drop of 0.87 points in the freedom of speech objective since then, and the 0.71 loss in plurality of news sources is also telling of Georgia’s problems. The political crisis of early 2008 and the tensions with Russia over South Ossetia that erupted into war damaged press freedom and the media itself, as it increasingly became a means for political ends, following the trend reported last year. Complicated ownership structures of some of the most influential media seem to lead back to politicians and their close associates. During the war, the government blocked Russian media and websites. Panelists observed that media are not run for the purpose of making a profit; rather, they often receive cash injections from their owners and must operate in an environment of politicization in advertisement placement.

Russia and Western Eurasia showed some improvement, due mainly to better performance of the business management objective and overall progress recorded in Ukraine. Ukraine’s media continue to develop, but the pace of improvement in professional journalism is not keeping up with other areas. Panelists were critical of the ability of much of the Ukrainian media to provide the public with objective information, and pointed out in particular the adverse effect of “advertorial” content and other hidden advertisements.

Russia still falls short of its 2001 scores in all objectives except Objective 4, business management. Efforts by the government to control news and information have negatively impacted both the freedom of speech and plurality of news sources objectives. Perhaps most troubling are reports from panelists that the lack of diversity in news sources and abbreviated freedom of the press is not of particular concern to the public at large.

Central Asia managed to show some improvements despite the inclusion of Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan in the regional average. Uzbekistan continued to worsen, if only slightly, and is the leader in negative change since 2001, losing 48 percent. Turkmenistan, new to the MSI last year, also suffered losses and achieved the worst score in the history of the Europe and Eurasia MSI and one of the worst in the roughly 80 countries studied worldwide by the MSI.

Kazakhstan moved from a position of net loss to net gain this year. Overall, many problems persist, as the score of 1.68 implies. In particular, the freedom of speech and plurality of news objectives languish below 1.50. However, panelists awarded higher scores for professional journalism this year, and stronger economic performance helped improve the business management score as well.

Kyrgyzstan leads Central Asia in improvement since 2001, with an increase of 49.5 percent. It advanced somewhat again this year as panelists upgraded their assessments of freedom of speech and professional journalism. However, despite being arguably the freest country in Central Asia, Kyrgyzstan’s scores for professional journalism and business management prevent it from entering the “near sustainability” category. Lack of development in these two objectives can create mutually reinforcing challenges, as a lack of resources at media outlets precludes quality, which in turn hinders the value of media in the eye of the consumer.

The MSI is showing that overall, despite some improvements, media development throughout the Europe and Eurasia region is difficult, particularly in the face of political turmoil and government animus toward transparency, critical opinions, and plurality in the media. Although Kazakhstan moved from a position of overall loss to overall gain, it was offset by two countries, Macedonia and Azerbaijan, plus Turkmenistan in the second iteration of the MSI there. What used to be the province of only the most repressive in the region, the list of overall backsliders has increased to include nearly one-third of the 21 countries studied by IREX in the region.

Developments in the Objectives

A few trends presented themselves within the objectives and deserve some attention. While not an exhaustive treatment of the developments throughout the region, these are common themes that were observed across different sub-regions.

Panelists from many countries complained of various pressures, such as lawsuits, threats against journalists, and uneven playing fields in the market. The result is often self-censorship, one-sided coverage, and abandonment of ethics, as described in discussions of Objective 2, professional journalism. The irreconcilable political polarization in many of these societies, from Albania to Azerbaijan to Kazakhstan, is reflected in the media. Many outlets become beholden to one faction or another, and the media as a whole—including the few that can claim to be independent—are seen as fair game in political machinations.

While governments must not be allowed to justify repressive measures under the guise of “media here are not yet responsible enough,” media can protect themselves by adhering more closely to accepted journalism standards and ethics. In the end, the decision to follow ethical practices must be made at the local level. Panelists in Kosovo made a good point that could be one step in the right direction. In a discussion of Objective 1 and attacks on journalists, one panelist said, “When five or six newspapers write on a hot topic, the threat against the journalists is minimal.” If more media cover controversial topics, and cover them fairly, they may well put the sector on firmer footing.

Despite lingering poverty in many of the countries in the region, panelists reported that overall, 2008 was good for business. Scores for Objective 4, business management, increased noticeably in 11 countries, while decreasing in only six. A number of elections resulted in more cash outlays for advertising and public relations, and many panelists also described increases in the advertising market. Further, media businesses are adopting increasingly better management practices, including wider use of market research and reliance on audience measurements—absent in most of the countries that IREX studies in other regions. Online media are beginning to make money. Finally, print media are better balancing advertising revenues and not relying on subscriptions as they once did.

On the down side, many of the countries—particularly those with small populations and a unique language—suffer from too much competition in the market. Montenegro, with about 670,000 people, is an extreme example. But Kosovo, Croatia, Macedonia, Albania, and Moldova all have fewer than 5 million people. The relatively large media markets in these countries may hurt the overall sustainability of the media and its ability to inform the public. For example, panelists in Croatia complained about the print media’s reliance on kiosks for sales and the therefore requisite “screaming headlines” that entice consumers away from more news-oriented media. Sustainability issues might become more acute as countries open up digital frequencies.

Objective 5, supporting institutions, has been a historic leader among the five objectives in the Europe and Eurasia region. In last year’s discussion of developments in Objective 5, the MSI reported, “The relative strength of this sector in 2008 and the growth since 2001 is cause for optimism for the development of the sector...” However, this year Objective 5 suffered the largest decrease of any objective. It was down noticeably in seven countries, while increasing in five and remaining more or less the same in nine. Its overall regional average fell below 2.00 for the first time since 2002.

Some panelists point to diminished involvement of international donors as a reason for Objective 5’s overall decrease. However, more is going on: in many cases, donors left seemingly strong, sustainable organizations. Polarization in the media and increasing competition have undermined cooperative spirit. In many countries, panelists report a lack of commitment by local media professionals to sustain such organizations. Further, efforts to date to improve journalism education have not paid dividends, although in many countries, panelists are hopeful that recent developments will change this trend.

Some positive examples can be found, such as the Croatian Journalists’ Association. Nonetheless, local communities of media professionals must take ownership of their supporting institutions, and recognize the need for solidarity in order to resist pressures from the government and business and improve professionalism.