Blog

Library

Behind bars for fake news: Imminent threat to media…

Behind bars for fake news: Imminent threat to media freedom in Cyprus

The Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) strongly condemns a legislative proposal in Cyprus that threatens press freedom under the guise of combating disinformation. This amendment, which criminalises “fake news” and imposes harsh penalties, risks stifling independent journalism and encouraging self-censorship. Our international consortium calls on authorities to align with international human rights standards, promote media ethics, and protect freedom of expression, instead of exerting media control.

These provisions could have a profound chilling effect, leading to widespread self-censorship among media professionals, civil society organisations, activists, and ordinary citizens. Additionally, the ambiguity and contested nature of what constitutes “fake news” exacerbates the potential for arbitrary enforcement, with the risk of those in power ending up repressing legitimate dissent and criticism. 

 

The existence of such vague laws, and their exponential adoption in recent years worldwide, has often been a tool for political control over information rather than one to enhance its quality. Evidence shows that laws against disinformation have repeatedly been exploited by repressive authorities to influence the public opinion on what is considered to be true or false, offensive, dangerous or seditious. Under the proposed law, Cyprus’ Attorney General would have the power to determine what constitutes defamation, which will be reclassified from a civil offense to a criminal one.

 

We oppose the statement of Cyprus’ Deputy Attorney General Savvas Angelides, who claims a need for “drawing the line between freedom of speech and recklessness.” The international community, including the European Union, the Council of Europe, and the United Nations, consistently condemns the criminalisation of fake news

 

Likewise, the European Court of Human Rights and the UN have emphasized that prohibitions on false information are incompatible with the right to freedom of expression. The recently enacted Digital Services Act (DSA) and the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA) – if effectively implemented – both provide Cyprus a framework for addressing disinformation without resorting to criminal penalties. 

 

We are also alarmed that similarly, the local administration in Northern Cyprus approved a package of amendments to the penal code and related laws on 20 May. These broaden the definition of “malicious intent”, criminalising activities such as publishing “false news” and insulting state officials, resembling repressive measures seen in Turkey.

 

The MFRR calls on the Cypriot Parliament to reconsider the proposed amendments, aligning legislative efforts with international human rights standards and best practices. We urge authorities to avoid stifling legitimate journalistic work and to adopt non-repressive mechanisms to enhance the media landscape, such as reinforcing media ethics, promoting public service media, and fostering media pluralism.

 

We further encourage lawmakers to listen to and address the concerns of the journalistic community, so that the constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of expression and investigative journalism in Cyprus is protected.

 

Excessive monetary fines, imprisonment, content controls and corrections all pose significant threats to press freedom, and have no place in laws on media regulation. We stand firm in solidarity with Cypriot journalists in opposing these regressive measures.

Signed by:

  • International Press Institute (IPI) 
  • The European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF) 
  • Free Press Unlimited (FPU) 
  • The European Federation of Journalists (EFJ) 
  • OBC Transeuropa (OBCT) 
  • ARTICLE 19 Europe

This statement was coordinated by the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR), a Europe-wide mechanism which tracks, monitors and responds to violations of press and media freedom in EU Member States and candidate countries. 

Library

Mission Report – Silencing the Fourth Estate: Italy’s Democratic…

Mission Report: Silencing the Fourth Estate: Italy’s democratic drift

Media freedom in Italy is under threat, with rising political interference and legal harassment of journalists. Ahead of the 2024 EU elections, the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) conducted an urgent mission to Rome to dive deeper into these issues. Join us on July 29, 2024, for a webinar where we will share our findings and discuss solutions to safeguard Italy’s media freedom.

 

Available in Italian here

Media freedom in Italy has been steadily declining in recent years, marked by unprecedented attacks and violations often initiated by public officials in the attempt to silence critical voices. Political interference in public media and the systematic use of legal intimidation against journalists by political actors have long defined the media-politics relationship in Italy. However, these dynamics have reached alarming levels over the past two years.

 

In the lead-up to the 2024 EU elections, amidst a rapidly deteriorating context, the partner organisations of the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) conducted an urgent mission to Rome, Italy, on May 16-17, 2024. The mission aimed to engage with state representatives, institutions, and political parties on three critical issues: political interference in public media, legal harassment of dissenting journalists, and the potential acquisition of AGI, one of the country’s main news agencies.

 

This report presents the findings from the mission and MFRR’s ongoing monitoring, offering a comprehensive analysis of the three most urgent issues identified. It evaluates the impact of various measures and bills introduced by Italian decision makers,  in light of the latest EU provisions aimed at ensuring the independence of public media, countering market concentration, addressing conflicts of interest, and equipping the judiciary to handle vexatious lawsuits. The report also provides detailed recommendations for Italian institutional and governmental actors, outlining necessary steps to counter the decline in media freedom and  much needed reforms.

Silenziare il Quarto Potere: La deriva democratica dell’Italia

Negli ultimi anni, in Italia si è assistito ad un costante declino dell libertà dei media, segnato da attacchi e violazioni senza precedenti, spesso iniziati da rappresentanti pubblici nel tentativo di mettere a tacere voci critiche. L’interferenza politica nei media pubblici e l’uso sistematico di intimidazioni legali contro i giornalisti da parte degli attori politici da tempo degfinisco il rapporto tra media e politica in Italia. Tuttavia, negli ultimi due anni queste dinamiche hanno raggiunto livelli allarmanti.

In vista delle elezioni europee del 2024, in un contesto in rapido deterioramento, le organizzazioni partner del Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) hanno condotto una missione urgente a Roma, il 16-17 maggio 2024. La missione di advocacy aveva l’obiettivo di confrontarsi con rappresentanti istituzionali e politici su tre questioni critiche: l’interferenza politica nei media pubblici, le intimidazioni legali nei confronti dei giornalisti critici e la potenziale acquisizione dell’AGI, una delle principali agenzie di stampa del Paese.

Questo rapporto presenta i risultati della missione e del monitoraggio continuo del consorzip MFRR, offrendo un’analisi completa delle tre questioni più urgenti individuate. Valuta l’impatto di diverse misure e proposte di legge introdotte dai decisori italiani, alla luce delle più recenti disposizioni dell’UE volte a garantire l’indipendenza dei media pubblici, a contrastare la concentrazione del mercato, ad affrontare i conflitti di interesse e ad attrezzare la magistratura per gestire le cause vessatorie. Il rapporto fornisce inoltre raccomandazioni dettagliate per gli attori istituzionali e governativi italiani, delineando i passi necessari per contrastare il declino della libertà dei media e le riforme necessarie.

Il report è al momento disponibile in lingua inglese. La versione in italiano sarà disponibile a partire dall’inizio di settembre.

This mission report was coordinated as part of the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR), a Europe-wide mechanism which tracks, monitors and responds to violations of press and media freedom in EU Member States and candidate countries. The MFRR is co-funded by the European Commission.

Event

Silencing the Fourth Estate: Italy’s democratic drift

Silencing the Fourth Estate:

Italy’s Democratic Drift

29 July, 14:00 CET.

On July 29, Osservatorio Balcani Caucaso Transeuropa (OBCT), the European Federation of Journalists (EFJ), and the European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF) will host a webinar to mark the publication of the final report following the MFRR mission to Rome. 

 

Amid unprecedented political interference in public media, widespread use of legal intimidation against dissenting journalists by government officials, a problematic defamation reform put forward by the ruling coalition, and the potential acquisition of AGI by one of Lega’s MPs, the MFRR organised an urgent mission to Italy on May 16 and 17, 2024

 

Relying on the findings from meetings held during the mission and MFRR’s ongoing monitoring of the situation in the country, the report assesses the deterioration of media freedom in Italy. These challenges, indicative of a tense relationship between media and political actors, undermine independent and critical journalism, generating worrying implications for Italian democracy. The mission observed that the chilling effect resulting from the contraction of freedom of expression and the governments’ attempts to silence the press signal a worrying democratic decline in Italy’s media freedom landscape.

 

Last May’s MFRR mission to Italy was led by the Osservatorio Balcani e Caucaso Transeuropa (OBCT) and the European Federation of Journalists (EFJ). The mission report was prepared by MFRR partner organisations: ARTICLE 19 Europe; European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF); European Federation of Journalists (EFJ); International Press Institute (IPI); Osservatorio Balcani e Caucaso Transeuropa (OBCT). 

 

The report will be published  in English on July 29, with a translated Italian version to follow in the first week of September.

Moderator

Renate

Renate Schroeder

Director of European Federation of Journalists (EFJ)

Speakers

Alessandra Mancuso

Member of Usigrai

Francesca de Benedetti

Journalist at Domani

Davide Sarsini

Journalist at AGI

Final remarks

Serena Epis

Researcher at Osservatorio Balcani Caucaso Transeuropa (OBCT)

Kosovo media law Library

Kosovo’s media law enables political capture of media regulatory…

Kosovo’s media law enables political capture of media regulatory body

The undersigned Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) consortium partners express deep alarm over the passage of a new media law by the Kosovo Parliament this month. We share local and international concerns that this law does not meet international standards on free expression and threatens media freedom, including by granting the authorities greater control over media regulation.

The MFRR has previously joined civil society organisations in Kosovo in raising alarms over the law for the Independent Media Commission (IMC). Critics have seen the proposed legislation as an attack on the media, expressing worries that the ruling party may use this law to censor them. Now, this risks becoming a reality, with potentially dire consequences for media freedom and independence.

 

In December last year, the draft law was first adopted by the Kosovo government, led by the party Lëvizja Vetëvendosje (LVV). Ignoring local and international criticism, on 7 March 2024 the Vetëvendosje-run Assembly approved the legislative proposal in its first reading. On 11 July, the Kosovo Parliament passed the media law despite contrary advice from the Council of Europe, European Union, OSCE, and other organizations.

 

On 19 July, opposition parties Kosovo Democratic Party and Democratic League of Kosovo challenged the law before the Constitutional Court. The Association of Journalists of Kosovo has asked Kosovo’s President, Vjosa Osmani (aligned with LVV), to form an opinion about the IMC law and to share it with the public. She has been silent so far.

 

Main concerns about the law are related to potential impact on media pluralism, independence, and the broader regulatory landscape governing media outlets in the country. The proposed legislation includes several controversial provisions:

 

  • Greater political Influence on the regulatory body: established by law as an “independent body for regulation, management, and oversight of the broadcasting frequency spectrum”, the IMC is nevertheless already subject to political influence. As they are elected by the Kosovo Parliament (where LVV currently holds 51% of the seats), IMC members often serve their own political agenda. The expansion of the IMC board from 7 to 11 members, the increase of their mandate for up to eight years, and the Parliament’s possibility of dismissing the board, in case it loses its confidence, all planned in the bill, will increase the potential for political capture, enabling even greater governmental influence over media regulation. At the same time, the Press Council of Kosovo (which consists of media representatives) will be weakened since part of online media will be regulated by IMC.
  • Registration of online media: the new law requires IMC to register media based on a new definition of online media that does not exist in EU law, according to the Council of Europe’s legal opinion. This creates legal uncertainty for online media outlets.
  • Fines for violating the rules under the new bill: the legislative proposal set fines ranging from €200 to €40,000 for media outlets that violate its provisions, but lacks specificity regarding which offense corresponds to which exact amount. This raises concerns about arbitrary and excessive penalties that could silence dissenting voices.
  • Removal of gender equity clause: the draft law scraps the previously existing requirement for at least two women on the IMC board, violating the 2015 Law on Gender Equality and raising further worries about representation in media.

The law was passed without incorporating key recommendations from international organizations, prompting concerns about Kosovo’s commitment to maintaining European standards for media freedom. Particularly, the EU and OSCE have raised issues about the law’s impact on the composition, role, and responsibilities of the IMC, as well as its expanded powers over social media. Additionally, the CoE criticised the lack of legal clarity within the provision, proportionality of measures, and deviations from the EU acquis.

 

Legislative changes must be made with genuine involvement of the media sector’s associations and representatives. We thus hope that  the Constitutional Court will assess the new bill in light of the constitutional provisions on the right to freedom of expression and protection of media freedom and independence, as well as international and regional human rights standards. We urge the Court to use its mandate to repeal the law and protect fundamental rights. At the same time, we call upon President Osmani to publicly condemn the law and reiterate her commitment to promote and preserve media freedom in Kosovo.

Signed by:

  • International Press Institute (IPI)
  • ARTICLE 19 Europe
  • The European Federation of Journalists (EFJ)
  • Free Press Unlimited (FPU)
  • OBC Transeuropa (OBCT)
  • The European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF)

This statement was coordinated by the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR), a Europe-wide mechanism which tracks, monitors and responds to violations of press and media freedom in EU Member States and candidate countries. 

Melita Vrsaljko Library

Croatia: Faktograf journalist Melita Vrsaljko physically assaulted twice in…

Croatia: Faktograf journalist Melita Vrsaljko physically assaulted twice in a week

The undersigned organisations express deep concerns about the physical attacks targeting Melita Vrsaljko, a journalist working for the Croatian fact-checking website Faktograf.hr and the Climate Portal. Vrsaljko was assaulted twice in the same week, in the street and at her home in Nadin due to her journalistic work. We urge the Croatian authorities not to let these unprecedented attacks go unpunished.

On 15 July 2024, journalist Melita Vrsaljko and a freelance camera operator were working on a documentary co-produced by the Climate Portal, which focused on climate change and waste. While on assignment, they were attacked by an elderly man after passing near his land, which Vrsaljko said had become an emerging illegal waste dump in Nadin. According to the journalist, the man suddenly ran towards them, first threatening the camera operator to damage his camera. The operator reportedly had his camera switched off and was not filming at the time.

 

Vrsaljko, who had identified herself as a journalist, was physically assaulted by the man, who reportedly grabbed her arm and snatched her mobile phone. In self-defence, the journalist reported she had no choice but to kick him to free herself and call the police. Police officers of the Benkovac-Obrovac Police Station intervened on site and considered the incident as a misdemeanor against Public Order and Peace (no criminal offence established) with both the journalist and the attacker equally guilty. The police issued an order for both to stay at least 50 meters away from each other. Vrsaljko stated on her social media that the man attacked her first, based on a short video of him running towards her, which she later published.

 

The following day, Vrsaljko was subjected to a second physical attack, this time in her home. The assailant was the initial attacker’s daughter, Iva Perić, a 36-year-old woman who had been harassing Vrsaljko throughout the day with numerous phone calls and messages, demanding that she delete the footage of her father. Despite Vrsaljko’s assurances that she had no intention of writing about the attack, Perić continued harassing her, and the altercation escalated into a physical assault, which left the journalist injured.

 

“Three hours after her last message, Iva Perić knocked on my door. Thinking it was my mother, I opened the door. After snatching my mobile phone and threatening to delete the footage of her father, she pulled my hair and strangled me,” Vrsaljko told the MFRR partners. “I was forced to bite her hand until it bled to push her away, grab my phone back and call the police,” the journalist added. The Croatian Journalists’ Association (CJA) said that police authorities,  whom the journalist called immediately after the incident, failed to recognise her journalistic work as the motive behind the attack, declaring once again the aggression as a misdemeanor.

 

Vrsaljko sustained bruises and scars from the fight, as well as throat pain from the strangulation. According to her lawyer, the journalist will file a criminal complaint for both attacks she was a victim of with the Zadar State Attorney’s Office.

 

Both attackers are related to Dario Vrsaljko, a councilor in the Zadar County Assembly. All three are distant relatives of the attacked journalist. Despite sharing the same surname, the journalist says she had no personal contact with them and was targeted only for her work.

 

“For years, Faktograf – Association for the Informed Public, has endured violent threats. Our journalists have been repeatedly subjected to harassment and attacks, yet this physical assault on Melita Vrsaljko in her own home marks an unprecedented and appalling escalation of violence,” Faktograf declared on its news portal.

 

Croatian journalists are not often subjected to physical attacks, in comparison to some other EU member states and candidate countries. Since 1 January 2023, only two physical attacks have been recorded on the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) platform. The attack on Melita Vrsaljko is an alarming example of physical violence being used to intimidate and silence journalists. The undersigned organisations urge the authorities to treat this case with the seriousness it deserves. The MFRR joins the SafeJournalists Network in calling on the authorities to prosecute the perpetrators, who have been clearly identified.

Signed by:

  • The European Federation of Journalists (EFJ)
  • The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ)
  • OBC Transeuropa (OBCT)
  • The European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF) 
  • Free Press Unlimited  (FPU)

This statement was coordinated by the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR), a Europe-wide mechanism which tracks, monitors and responds to violations of press and media freedom in EU Member States and candidate countries. 

Digital security Library

Digital security in Serbia: Another challenge to media freedom

Digital security in Serbia: Another challenge to media freedom

Media outlets in the country are increasingly exposed to cyber attacks, online threats and manipulations. We talked about digital security and its impact on independent journalism in Serbia with Bojan Perkov, digital policy coordinator at SHARE Foundation.

 

Interview originally published by OBCT. Available in Italian here.

SHARE Foundation  is a Belgrade-based NGO that works on privacy protection, security and freedom of expression. The activities of the organisation include training, support and awareness raising on digital security for journalists, activists, civil society and human rights defenders. These are organised around four pillars: freedom of expression online, data protection, digital security, and free access to knowledge. The NGO has also developed the SHARE CERT  , the first special CERT (Computer Emergency Response Team) in Serbia for online media and civil society, offering incident response, training and mentorship to journalists and media organisations that incur in digital issues.

 

What are the main trends that you notice regarding digital security challenges in Serbia?

We recently published our yearly monitoring report in which we track violations in three main areas: cyber attacks, privacy and data protection issues, as well as frauds, threats and manipulations. In 2023, we recorded many threats and manipulations. During the election campaign, for example, opposition politicians faced significant digital threats, including a smear campaign involving an intimate video aired on national TV, which forced a politician to withdraw from the race.

 

Are media outlets and journalists major targets of digital rights violations?

Yes, they are frequently targeted, especially when they expose government wrongdoing. This makes them inconvenient for the authorities. Civil society organizations like CRTA also face attacks from high-ranking officials.

 

Who are the most common offenders and forms of online attacks?

Public officials and politicians are the major offenders. However, we also see attacks from citizens, especially on social media. While these citizen attacks are numerous, those from politicians have more severe consequences. As for the kind of attacks, we mostly observe smear campaigns, accusations, and insults, often through social media and pro-government media outlets. Private actors often use SLAPPs, strategic lawsuits against journalists who write about their activities. Investigative outlets like KRIK, for example, face numerous lawsuits and digital threats from powerful actors.

 

How do these digital security challenges impact journalism?

Journalists continue their work professionally despite threats. However, these attacks amplify public hatred towards them, creating a hostile environment.

 

Is there an awareness of the seriousness of digital threats among journalists and civil society organizations?

Awareness varies. Organizations that have experienced attacks are more vigilant, while others may not realize the severity of these threats.

 

How prepared are media outlets to face digital threats?

There is a gap among media outlets. Smaller local media often lack resources and digital security awareness. Investigative journalists, however, are well-prepared, receiving training and support, especially from international organizations like OCCRP. They often meet confidential sources in person and use encrypted apps like Signal. They implement proper digital security measures tailored to their threat models.

 

How do you assess Serbia’s legal framework regulating the digital environment, especially regarding media freedom?

It can be improved. Most laws are influenced by European integration. For instance, our law on personal data protection is modelled after GDPR but, it combines it with the law enforcement directive, making it complex. We also have the law on information security, primarily focused on critical infrastructure. Efforts to update it were stalled by political events.

 

Do you see a gap between the law and the practice?

Yes, implementation often lags due to a lack of political will. Independent institutions try their best, but the broader system is not supportive.

 

Is there a network or coalition advocating for digital security in the country? Do you have transnational links with counterparts in the EU and other regions?

We are part of the national CERT network and cooperate with other special CERTs. We represent civil society and media in these forums.

The SHARE Foundation is also a member of European Digital Rights (EDRi) and other networks, such as CiviCERT. We receive significant support from these coalitions, which is empowering and essential for our advocacy efforts. We also co-founded the Southeast European Digital Rights Network, involving diverse organizations from across the region.

This publication is the result of activities carried out within the Media Freedom Rapid Response and within ATLIB – Transnational Advocacy for Freedom of Information in the Western Balkans, a project co-funded by the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation. All opinions expressed represent the views of their author and not those of the co-funding institutions.

Reporters Without Borders Library

France: Media freedom coalition condemns Vivendi’s disinformation campaign against…

France: Media freedom coalition condemns Vivendi’s disinformation campaign against Reporters Without Borders

The Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) partners strongly condemn the cyber disinformation campaign against the press freedom organisation Reporters Without Borders (RSF). The attacks have been orchestrated by the Paris-based communications agency “Progressif Media”, whose minor stakeholder is the Vivendi Group, a French mass-media holding company controlled by media tycoon Vincent Bolloré. The MFRR stands in full solidarity with RSF and urges a swift and thorough investigation into the disinformation campaign.

On 4 July, RSF revealed a two-month investigation, which included information from an internal Progressif Media document entitled “Vivendi Report”. This document detailed attacks aimed at portraying the press freedom organisation as wanting to “change the French audiovisual landscape according to its vision of pluralism”, while positioning the Vivendi-controlled CNews channel as the only place in favour of freedom of expression, in a context where CNews is among the candidate media being examined for the renewal of its TNT frequency for 2025. According to RSF, the attacks were triggered by a decision of the Council of State on 13 February which ordered, at the request of RSF, that the French audiovisual and digital communications authority (ARCOM) improve its enforcement of the the independence and pluralism of Cnews, one of the most sanctioned French channels, along with C8.

 

In the scope of its attacks on RSF,  Progressif Media used a method called “cybersquatting“, a malicious strategy of buying domains with names similar to RSF’s, to denigrate the press freedom organisation. Of the five domains bought, one was active and called “Sectarians without Borders”: this was a fake RSF site that the attackers had paid to be ranked highly by Google’s algorithm to spread the same orchestrated messages against RSF, including the creation of pre-prepared hate tweets that Internet users could select and post from their own X accounts. The site was taken down on 8 July, a few days after RSF exposed Vivendi’s attacks.

 

RSF’s investigation into the name, web server and real IP address of “Sectarians Without Borders” led RSF to identify similar IT characteristics of a number of existing sites, including two inactive domain names linked to Jean-Marie Le Pen, founder of the far-right National Front party (now Rassemblement National), and two active sites: “the CNews fan collective” and “The Corsairs of France”, which first promoted “Sectarians Without Borders” on X on 20 February and called on its 16,000 followers to “fight” against RSF through a defamatory video shared on X on 6 March. Meanwhile, discrediting comments about RSF have also been broadcast on Vivendi’s channels, including on Radio Europe 1, a station previously criticised by RSF for its alleged lack of editorial independence, respect for pluralism, and honest reporting since its takeover by Vivendi in 2021.

 

“Counterfeiting, concealment, cybersquatting, trolling, disinformation…these practices are not so recent, but this is the first time a company operating under French law has used these gangster methods to serve the interests of a French media group (Vivendi) [and] promote Cnews.  You cannot defend information and orchestrate a disinformation campaign at the same time,” said Arnaud Froger, head of the RSF investigation office, in conversation with the MFRR. According to Froger, the Vivendi group would have told RSF that it was unaware of practices described in the press freedom group’s investigation and recalled its minority stake in Progressive  Media.Vivendi did, however, acknowledge links between Progressif Media and Canal+, a major French TV channel owned by Bolloré.

 

More widely, the disinformation campaign against RSF comes in the context of a growing threat to media pluralism in France noted by independent observers. In a new report, the Media Pluralism Monitor (MPM), an annual study conducted by the Robert Schuman Centre, referred for the first time this year directly to “predatory strategies of media tycoons such as Vincent Bolloré”, highlighting the businessman’s alleged role in the growing influence of commercial interests and owners in media, arguing that this influence created a threat to media pluralism due to “oligopolistic control” and “the ensuing ideological polarisation” allegedly created by media outlets owned by Bolloré-controlled structures.

 

In this context, the MFRR stands in solidarity with RSF and all the organisations defending press and media freedom who are under pressure from the Vivendi group to silence their critical voices and to put forward those of the Bolloré programs. It is essential to resist intimidation in order to continue the fight against disinformation and for the right to freedom of expression, the cornerstone of democratic discourse.

Signed by:

  • The European Federation of Journalists (EFJ)
  • ARTICLE 19 Europe
  • International Press Institute (IPI)
  • Osservatorio Balcani Caucaso Transeuropa (OBCT)
  • European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF)

This statement was coordinated by the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR), a Europe-wide mechanism which tracks, monitors and responds to violations of press and media freedom in EU Member States and candidate countries. 

Açık Radyo Library

Turkey: Freedom of the press and expression groups condemn…

Turkey: Freedom of the press and expression groups condemn broadcast regulator’s silencing of Açık Radyo

The undersigned freedom of the press and expression organizations condemn the decision by Turkey’s broadcast regulator to revoke the license of independent radio station Açık Radyo. We call on the authorities in Turkey to uphold their obligations to protect press freedom and freedom of expression in line with the Turkish Constitution and international human rights law, and to reinstate Açık Radyo’s license. Media outlets in Turkey must be free to enable debate on issues of public interest without fear of sanctions.

 

Turkish translation available here

License Revocation

Turkey’s Radio and Television Supreme Council (RTÜK) penalized Açık Radyo in May after a guest made the following remarks on air: “the 109th anniversary of the deportations and massacres, referred to as genocide, that occurred on Ottoman soil. The Armenian genocide commemoration was banned again this year, as you know”. RTÜK accused the station of “inciting hatred or enmity or to foster feelings of hatred in society”, under Article 8 of Law No. 6112 and ordered an administrative fine and a five-day suspension for the same broadcast. Açık Radyo paid the fine but continued to broadcast its programmes, which RTÜK deemed a violation of the conditions set forth in its sanction. In July, RTÜK revoked Açık Radyo’s broadcasting license.

 

İlhan Taşcı, a member of RTÜK nominated by the country’s main opposition party, CHP, announced RTÜK’s decision over X. Taşcı told IPI: “The issue could have been approached from the perspective of strengthening press freedom, considering that the broadcaster paid the fine. Based on this, a decision favoring the broadcaster could have been made – one that upholds press freedom while ensuring the public does not lose a radio station that has operated for 30 years”.

 

In its press release, Açık Radyo protested RTÜK’s decision with the following words: “It is unacceptable that, on the basis of an expression, which indisputably stands within the scope of freedom of expression and press freedom, voiced during our program ‘Açık Gazete’, we now face the revocation of Açık Radyo’s broadcast license.” Launched in 1995, Açık Radyo (Open Radio in English) is an independent, not-for-profit media organization. 

 

Continued Harassment of Independent Media

The revocation of Açık Radyo’s license comes amid a series of penalties that RTÜK has imposed on six different TV and radio channels this year. These media outlets, known for their critical reporting, include Now TV, which was fined four times, and Tele1, which was fined three times. In most cases, the channels were given a 2% administrative fine.

 

In the case of Açık Radyo, the remarks in question are clearly covered by the right to freedom of expression as guaranteed by international human rights law, including the European Convention on Human Rights. We urgently call on RTÜK to swiftly reinstate Açık Radyo’s license. 

 

More broadly, we call on RTÜK to act according to its mandate and secure freedom of expression and media pluralism in the country instead of censoring critical and independent media. We also call on the Turkish authorities to reconsider their approach toward media regulation.

Signed by:

  • International Press Institute (IPI) 
  • ARTICLE 19 
  • Articolo 21 
  • The Coalition For Women In Journalism (CFWIJ) 
  • Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) 
  • European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF) 
  • Foreign Media Association Turkey (FMA Turkey) 
  • Freedom House 
  • IFEX 
  • Media and Law Studies Association (MLSA) 
  • Media and Migration Association (MMA) 
  • PEN America 
  • PEN International 
  • PEN Norway 
  • Platform for Independent Journalism (P24) 
  • Progressive Journalists Association (ÇGD) 
  • South East Europe Media Organisation (SEEMO) 
  • Swedish PEN

Türkiye: Basın ve ifade özgürlüğü kuruluşları, RTÜK’ün Açık Radyo’yu susturmasını kınıyor

Yayında geçen “Ermeni Soykırımı” sözü nedeniyle Açık Radyo’nun lisansı iptal edildi

Uluslararası Basın Enstitüsü (IPI), aşağıda imzası bulunan basın ve ifade özgürlüğü kuruluşlarıyla birlikte, Türkiye’nin yayın düzenleyicisi RTÜK’ün bağımsız radyo istasyonu Açık Radyo’nun lisansını iptal etme kararını kınıyor. Türkiye’deki yetkilileri, Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Anayasası ve uluslararası insan hakları hukuku doğrultusunda basın ve ifade özgürlüğünü koruma yükümlülüklerini yerine getirmeye ve Açık Radyo’nun lisansını iade etmeye çağırıyoruz. Türkiye’deki medya kuruluşları, kamuyu ilgilendiren konularda yaptırım korkusu olmaksızın tartışmaya olanak sağlamakta özgür olmalıdır.

Yayın Lisansı İptal Edildi

Radyo ve Televizyon Üst Kurulu (RTÜK), Açık Radyo’da Açık Gazete adlı programın 24 Nisan tarihli yayınına katılan konuğun “(…) Ermeni, yani Osmanlı topraklarında gerçekleşen tehcir ve katliamların, soykırım olarak adlandırılan katliamların 109. Yıldönümü, sene-i devriyesi. Bu yıl da yasaklandı biliyorsunuz Ermeni soykırım anması” şeklindeki ifadelerinin ardından Mayıs ayında Açık Radyo’ya ceza verdi. RTÜK, kanalı 6112 Sayılı Kanun’un 8. maddesi uyarınca “toplumu kin ve düşmanlığa tahrik etmek veya toplumda nefret duyguları oluşturmak” iddiasıyla idari para cezası ve beş günlük yayın durdurma cezasına çarptırdı. Açık Radyo, para cezasını ödedi ancak yayına devam etti. RTÜK, yaptırımda belirtilen koşulların ihlal edildiğini değerlendirdi ve Temmuz ayında Açık Radyo’nun yayın lisansını iptal etti.

RTÜK’ün CHP kontenjanından seçilen üyesi İlhan Taşcı, kararı X üzerinden duyurdu. Taşcı, Uluslararası Basın Enstitüsü’ne (IPI) şunları söyledi: “Burada konuya basın özgürlüğünün güçlenmesi bakımından yaklaşılıp yayıncının para cezasını ödediği göz önünde bulundurulabilirdi. Hem basın özgürlüğü düşünülerek hem de dinleyicilerin 30 yıldır faaliyet gösteren bir radyoyu dinleme hakkını elinden almamak adına yayıncı lehine karar verilebilirdi.”

1995 yılında kurulan, bağımsız ve kâr amacı gütmeyen bir medya kuruluşu olan Açık Radyo, yaptığı basın açıklamasında RTÜK’ün kararına şu sözlerle karşı çıktı: “Programımız ‘Açık Gazete’de dile getirilen ve tartışmasız bir şekilde ifade ve basın özgürlüğü kapsamında yer alan bir ifade temelinde, Açık Radyo’nun yayın lisansının iptaliyle karşı karşıya kalmamız kabul edilemez.”

Bağımsız Medyaya Yönelik Sistematik Taciz

Açık Radyo’nun lisansının iptali, RTÜK’ün bu yıl altı farklı radyo ve televizyon kanalına uyguladığı bir dizi cezanın devamı niteliğinde. Eleştirel yayınlarıyla bilinen bu medya kuruluşları arasında dört kez %2 idari para cezasına çarptırılan Now TV ve yine üç kez %2 para cezasına çarptırılan Tele1 de bulunuyor.

Açık Radyo örneğinde ceza gerekçesi olarak gösterilen ifadeler, Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi de dahil olmak üzere uluslararası insan hakları hukuku tarafından güvence altına alınan ifade özgürlüğü kapsamındadır. RTÜK’ü, Açık Radyo’nun lisansını derhal iade etmeye çağırıyoruz.

RTÜK’ü görevi gereğince hareket etmeye, ifade özgürlüğünü ve medyada çoğulculuğu güvence altına almaya, eleştirel ve bağımsız medyayı sansürlemek yerine korumaya davet ediyoruz. Türkiye yetkililerini de medya düzenlemelerine yönelik yaklaşımlarını gözden geçirmeye çağırıyoruz.

İmzalayanlar


Uluslararası Basın Enstitüsü (IPI)

ARTICLE 19

Articolo 21

Avrupa Basın ve Medya Özgürlüğü Merkezi (ECPMF)

Bağımsız Gazetecilik Platformu (P24)

Çağdaş Gazeteciler Derneği (ÇGD)

Freedom House

Gazetecileri Koruma Komitesi (CPJ)

Gazetecilikte Kadın Koalisyonu (CFWIJ)

Güney Doğu Avrupa Medya Örgütü (SEEMO)

IFEX

İsveç PEN

Medya ve Göç Derneği (MGD)

Medya ve Hukuk Çalışmaları Derneği (MLSA)

PEN Amerika

PEN Norveç

Uluslararası PEN

Yabancı Medya Derneği

This statement was coordinated by the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR), a Europe-wide mechanism which tracks, monitors and responds to violations of press and media freedom in EU Member States and candidate countries. 

Library

Media in Montenegro – Interview with Mihailo Jovović, editor-in-chief…

Media in Montenegro – Interview with Mihailo Jovović, editor-in-chief of Vijesti

After the dissolution of Yugoslavia and a transition period, in Montenegro – now a candidate country for EU membership – the evolution of the media landscape continued in parallel with the attempts to accelerate democratic developments.

 

By Sava Mirković
Originally published by OBCT. Also available in ITA and BHS

According to the latest ranking by Reporters Without Borders on press freedom in the world, Montenegro occupies the 40th place (out of a total of 180 countries taken into consideration), therefore it is positioned quite high compared to the other countries of the post-Yugoslav area. However, the situation is not rosy.

 

External interference, mainly from Serbia, through media ownership structures, and the pervasiveness of propaganda are just some of the problems plaguing the media sector in Montenegro. While on the one hand the European Commission, in its latest report on Montenegro, considers the level of pluralism of the Montenegrin media landscape to be satisfactory, the Media Ownership Monitor operated by the Global Media Registry highlights some critical issues. Specifically, a high degree of cross-media ownership concentration and a significant risk of political interference in editorial decisions.

 

The first problem arises from the fact that eight main media companies control 89.5% of the Montenegrin media market (TV, print media, radio, and web portals). The second problematic aspect is linked to a strong polarization of the media, with a clear tendency to align with certain political positions.

 

The public broadcaster (Radio Television of Montenegro, RTCG) is the main source of information for Montenegrin citizens. The RTCG is currently led by Boris Raonić, appointed for the first time in 2021 with the aim of changing the management framework of the public service, until then allegedly controlled by the Democratic Party of Socialists (DPS). In 2023 Raonić was reconfirmed as head of the RTCG, despite the decision of the High Court which deemed Raonić’s appointment illegitimate due to a conflict of interest.

 

The new law on public service, approved by the Podgorica parliament on 19 June, addresses the issue of the procedures for appointing the director of the RTCG and has become the bone of contention between the political forces precisely because of Raonić’s re-election.

 

Also worth highlighting is the issue of safety of journalists which, in Montenegro, is linked first and foremost to the inability (or lack of will) of the competent authorities to conduct adequate investigations and resolve cases of attacks on journalists. The unsolved murder of Duško Jovanović, owner and editor of the newspaper Dan, is one of the main indicators of the impotence of state institutions which, twenty years later, have still not managed to clarify what happened. Cases like this raise concern among citizens, fuel distrust in the judiciary and police forces, and contribute to the creation of a dangerous environment for journalists.

 

We spoke about this, and much more, with Mihailo Jovović, editor-in-chief of the independent newspaper Vijesti and president of the Commission for monitoring the work of the authorities responsible for investigating attacks on journalists.

This interview was conducted by Osservatorio Balcani e Caucaso Transeuropa (OBCT) as part of the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR), a Europe-wide mechanism which tracks, monitors and responds to violations of press and media freedom in EU Member States and candidate countries. The MFRR is co-funded by the European Commission. 

Library

Serbia: Media independence is an exception rather than the…

Serbia: Media independence is an exception rather than the rule

Increasing political and financial pressure threatens the independence and editorial autonomy of many media outlets in Serbia. We interviewed Irina Milutinović, Senior Research Associate at the Institute of European Studies in Belgrade and co-author of the Country Report on Serbia of the Media Pluralism Monitor 2023.

 

Interview conducted by OBCT and originally published here

According to the Serbia Media Pluralism Monitor 2023, editorial independence is one of the areas in which Serbia registers high risks. What are the main threats to editorial autonomy in the country? 

Journalists suffer various forms of pressure, mostly of a political and financial nature. Independent editors in Serbia are an exception, rather than the rule. They are usually appointed by their media owners, who choose from among their loyal so that they can control journalists’ work from the inside through soft censorship.

 

Some significant forms of pressure come from SLAPPs as well as from smear campaigns, often initiated by state authorities and public officials and mostly targeting investigative and critical journalists as enemies of the country.

 

Political pressure is also applied through financial blackmail: state advertising and direct state subsidies are often allocated through politically biased and non-transparent mechanisms. Pro-government media are the biggest beneficiaries of this type of support, including tabloid media, although they often disregard the journalistic ethical code.

 

Finally, most TV and radio stations, as well as print media outlets, belong to companies that are under direct or indirect control of subjects close to the ruling party.

 

What impact do these challenges have on journalists and the quality of their work? 

First, I want to point out that the Serbian media market is highly concentrated and polarised, which means that pro-government media are larger, more numerous, and more influential, while more critical ones have smaller coverage and proportionally weaker public influence. Pro-government media tend to instrumentalise issues of public interest to foster a we vs them dialectic, where “us” are usually described as patriots, while “them” as traitors.

 

Another important feature of the media landscape is poor content pluralism, as most outlets tend to adopt and support the government’s political agenda without any critical approach. So critical voices remain marginalised and lose their capacity to contribute to democratic processes: there is zero debate and no bottom-up transfer of their proposals on government’s decisions.

 

Does this situation impact citizens’ trust in the sector? 

In general, citizens show low levels of trust in the media. Media literacy in Serbia is not good. Most citizens who live in marginalised communities are under a very strong influence of pro-government media. The public service broadcaster RTS has the biggest influence and is perceived as the most trustworthy media in the country.

 

What we notice is an increase in the number of people getting news online. In this regard, it is important to note that the digital space in Serbia is characterised by aggressive communication, threats, and insults, and the number of online attacks on journalists has increased, especially through social networks.

 

In recent years new Internet portals were opened without being properly registered: most of them do not publish an impressum so we don’t know who finances and owns them. A big problem is that these portals act as main spreaders of disinformation and fake news.

 

On the other hand, some digital media have become the real drivers of alternative voices. These portals usually deal with investigative and analytical journalism, offer diversified views, and give space to voices and topics that we cannot find in the mainstream media, such as corruption and criminal affairs, local community problems, human rights, ecology, etc. They are less exposed to political interference, so they have a bigger potential to function as platforms for democratic debate.

 

As part of the EU integration process, Serbia has to align with the EU set of norms, including those on media freedom. How would you assess the country’s legal framework regarding the media sector?

In October of last year, the National Assembly of Serbia introduced two new media laws: the Law on Public Information and Media and the Law on Electronic Media, whose provisions aim at implementing the objectives of the Media Strategy adopted in 2020.

 

Some positive developments must be noted. For example, the Law on Public Information and Media regulates in more detail the process of media co-financing and state aid. When it comes to the Law on Electronic Media, it introduces some provisions that potentially strengthen the independence of the Regulatory Authority for Electronic Media (REM) and others that prescribe a more transparent process for the allocation of public funds.

 

However, not all the provisions of the new laws are harmonised with the Media Strategy and the EU Audiovisual Media Services Directive.

 

Regarding editorial independence, for example, what is particularly worrisome is the return of the state to media ownership. According to the Law on Public Information and Media, state-owned companies can fund or own media outlets, a practice that is prohibited by the Media Strategy itself, which on the contrary recognises that the removal of every form of state participation in media ownership is a key factor for the improvement of media freedom in the country.

 

Do you think that the process of EU integration has an impact on the protection of press and media freedom in the country?

It is hard to say. It is true that the government occasionally undertakes some regulatory reforms as part of the EU accession process. But in practice, the adopted regulations are gradually ignored, so the ruling party manages to find ways to maintain and even increase their control over almost the entire media landscape.

 

Overall, I think the situation today is no better than, for example, ten years ago when the negotiation process formally began. I think the EU should honestly recognise that the Serbian government has reached the limits of its willingness to move Serbia forward along the path to EU membership.

 

Even if we don’t take into account Kosovo or the issue of sanctions on Russia, the rule of law and media freedom in Serbia are considered problematic areas that have blocked the opening of new negotiating clusters.

 

The institutional set-up has been further captured by the main governing party and the President himself. In this situation, the recognition that the current model is unsustainable if Serbia wants to move closer to EU membership seems to be the first step.

 

With this in mind, the EU should develop stronger relations with the main opposition parties in Serbia, sending a signal to Serbian citizens that there are other important political actors and partners in Serbia and that the ruling elite cannot claim that it is keeping Serbia on the EU membership path.

This interview was published by OBCT as part of the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) and within ATLIB – Transnational Advocacy for Freedom of Information in the Western Balkans, a project co-funded by the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation. All opinions expressed represent the views of their author and not those of the co-funding institutions.