The issue:
As Bulgaria joined much of the rest of the world in marking World Press Freedom Day on May 3, the question once again arose of the freedom of the media in this country.
It was a question raised recently in the light of the bomb attack against investigative television journalist Vassil Ivanov. But the issue is a broader and deeper one.
Below are comments by some observers, including US-based media freedom watchdog Freedom House, along with an extract from the US state department 2005 report on human rights, and finally, a note from Reporters Without Borders.
Freedom House: Bulgaria (2005)
Status: Partly Free
Despite constitutional guarantees for freedom of the press, the Bulgarian media landscape is plagued by political control; manipulation of advertising, especially at local and regional levels; and pressures on the press from the government, private owners, and criminal organisations. In September, two journalists were fined for refusing to reveal their source for a controversial article. Libel by a journalist is defined as a criminal offence and is punishable by high fines. According to the European Union, the number of libel cases has increased and the risk of prosecution has led to self-censorship. The Access to Information Program reported problems with accessing information, frequent denials, and unanswered requests, particularly from minorities. The European Commission alleged that weak legislation is hindering the independence of the Council of Electronic Media (CEM), the broadcasting regulatory authority. Members of the CEM, who appoint the directors of Bulgarian National Television (BNT) and Bulgarian National Radio, are chosen partly by the President and partly by the National Assembly, which continues to exercise control over the media. In March 2004, the CEM dismissed the director of BNT for mismanagement. Later, this decision was revoked in court, with appeals pending.
In November, representatives from Bulgaria’s media signed a new ethics code. State-owned media present a variety of political views, but inefficiency of legislation allows for continued state control. Nongovernmental organisations and media associations describe the situation as risky for freedom of speech. In November, a Romanian journalist was arrested for unauthorised use of a concealed camera in a duty-free shop on the Romanian-Bulgarian border while on assignment for his station. The journalist faced up to three years’ imprisonment, but international pressure forced the government to expedite the case, and the journalist was subsequently ordered to pay a fine. Press freedom organisations labelled the arrest a restriction on investigative reporting and a politicised use of an archaic law. A British reporter was also investigated for using a concealed camera as well as “inciting corruption” for a BBC television programme. Violence against and harassment of journalists, particularly minority journalists, still exist, mostly the result of organised crime and a climate of impunity fostered by a weak judiciary.
Bulgaria provides a diverse range of independent and private newspapers. The press market is relatively stable, boasting many independent and private dailies and weeklies. However, the German media holding company WAZ, which has established a near monopoly of circulation as well as advertising revenue, dominates the market. Because of business interests of newspaper owners, editorial teams refrain from investigating or commenting on certain problems in the state. Owing to a low subscription base, advertising, particularly government advertising, is the only serious income generator.
US State Department 2005 report on human rights:
Section 2, Respect for Civil Liberties, Including Freedom of Speech and Press:
The law provides for freedom of speech and of the press, and the Government generally respected these rights in practice. There were reports, however, that journalists were threatened and intimidated by individuals with political interests. NGOs reported that significant numbers of journalists practiced self-censorship due to political influence, and to pressure from management and organised crime. Some journalists allegedly accepted payments in return for positive coverage of politicians, prominent businessmen, and organised crime syndicates.
Individuals criticised the Government freely without reprisal, and the Government did not attempt to impede criticism.
A variety of newspapers were published freely by political parties and other organisations representing the full spectrum of public opinion.
In an open letter to the Prime Minister (then Simeon Saxe-Coburg) in early June 2004, 266 judges criticised the manipulation of the media by Interior Ministry officials. The Prime Minister responded on June 14 by reaffirming the importance of the independence of the judiciary and encouraging direct dialogue, rather than media campaigns, as a solution to the problem. Domestic organisations cited politically motivated intimidation and dismissal of journalists as a major problem.
Defamation is punishable under the law. In most cases the courts defined libel and interpreted the law in a manner that favored journalistic expression. Fines for libel ranged from approximately $1875 (3000 leva) to approximately $6250 (10 000 leva); fines for slander ranged from approximately $3125 (5000 leva) to $9375 (15 000 leva). Although observers noted a slight increase in the number of defamation suits brought against journalists in recent years, only a small number of cases resulted in the journalist being fined. The majority of defamation cases were brought against reports about corruption or mismanagement, and the most frequent plaintiffs were government officials or other persons in public positions.
On September 1, in the town of Vratsa, unknown persons set on fire the local office of the largest circulating national daily newspaper, Trud. The incident followed a threat against Trud’s local correspondent, who had reported on government contracts given to a local businessman alleged to have links to organised crime.
There were no developments in the investigations into threats against newspaper Naroden Glas, news agency De Facto, or national daily newspaper 24 Hours in 2004.
Television and radio provided a variety of news and public interest programming. Although state-owned media presented opposition views, media observers believed that the inadequacy of existing legislation left state-owned media vulnerable to government pressure. Despite this vulnerability, Bulgarian Telegraph Agency (BTA), the state-owned news agency, was generally regarded as unbiased, and the state-owned Bulgarian National Radio (BNR) was often one of the most outspoken critics of the government and its policies.
The Council for Electronic Media (CEM) was unable to promulgate new licensing procedures because the National Assembly did not approve the strategy for developing radio and television activities until September, despite the 2002 passage of legislation requiring CEM to issue radio and television programming licenses only in accordance with the strategy. The CEM was forced to deny at least 20 applications in 2004. It was not clear when the government would resume licensing electronic media. Although the CEM could not initiate new tenders for television and radio programming licenses, it was still able to regulate programming and to transfer, amend, revoke, and terminate such licenses.
On February 18, the Supreme Administrative Court reversed its own 2004 decision and confirmed the CEM’s March 2004 firing of BNT Chairman Kiril Gotsev for his 2002 decision not to allow a televised rebuttal to comments made in a political talk show. The court held that Gotsev’s decision not to air the rebuttal gravely violated the affected party’s freedom of expression and limited its right to defend its reputation.
In 2004 the CEM noted 71 infringements of the radio and television act: 55 by television operators and 16 by radio operators. The CEM fined 34 of these operators for violations that were considered serious, including violating the right to free expression of opinion, violating source confidentiality agreements, and airing programs that promote discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, and national origin.
On April 7, the Rousse district court repealed the December 2004 sentence imposed on Romanian TV journalist George Buhnici for having used a microphone and a camera hidden in his glasses to film illegal cigarette trade at the Bulgarian-Romanian border. The court cited procedural violations and returned the case to the district prosecutor.
There were no government restrictions on the Internet or academic freedom.
Reporters without borders, index of press freedom 2005:
Despite efforts, press freedom is not securely established in Bulgaria (RSF ranked it in 48th place).
