Media freedom in Bulgaria
A lack of sufficient autonomy
![Media Freedom Bulgaria Media Freedom Bulgaria](/resources/files/png100/bulgarien_journalism_under_pressure_2300x1000-formatkey-png-w983.png)
It is a well-known fact that, in recent years, Bulgaria has consistently been ranked last among all EU countries, according to the World Press Freedom Index compiled by Reporters Without Borders (RSF). In the last three annual editions of the Index, for 2018, 2019 and 2020, Bulgaria is ranked 111th out of 180 countries. Viewed in the context of Southeast Europe, Bulgaria is also not performing well: it is ranked lower than non-EU countries in the region.
By Orlin Spassov
The political and media situation in Bulgaria is assessed as problematic by many other international and Bulgarian organizations as well. The US non-governmental organization Freedom House, for instance, has defined Bulgaria as a “semi-consolidated democracy” for years. In countries in this category, political parties are mostly clientelistic and corruption is widespread in government. The connection between the weaknesses of the political system and the state of the media environment is obvious.
Lack of sufficient autonomy of media is the most pressing issue. There are almost no independent media in Bulgaria. Like most political parties, most media outlets are clientelistic and the economic principles of their operation are distorted by multiple dependencies. In many cases, important media policy decisions are made outside of media outlets. Perhaps the closest parallel is to Hungary, but it is not difficult to find similarities also with some developments in Romania.
If I have to point out three main concrete issues, they are: strong control over the media (political and economic control), strong shortage of quality media (and hence, of investigative journalism), and weak protection of the journalistic profession.
The lack of media independence has directly resulted in a lack of freedom in the journalistic profession. This is a chronic problem. Bulgaria’s post-1989 democratization has failed to resolve it. As a result, the journalistic profession, with few exceptions, is characterized by poor practice. Good journalism culture has turned out to be unnecessary because values have shifted towards serving private interests, be they political or commercial. In the media sphere, public relations have trumped journalism. Almost every more prominent private interest feels obliged to place one or more media outlets under control; in the last few years, the government has gradually taken control over public-service television and radio. On the quiet and under the label of “journalism”, most people in the media are de facto practising an entirely different profession.
Against this background, the journalistic profession is extremely vulnerable. There are no effective mechanisms for protection upon dismissal of or pressure on journalists. In the past year, many investigative journalists have been fired or intimidated in various ways. There are cases of physical violence against journalists. Critical journalism has been relegated to smaller, often marginal, media outlets. In these conditions, quality journalism and in-depth investigations are rare. Self-censorship is widespread. Many journalists prefer security to risk and avoid being critical on issues that are inconvenient to media owners. In many media outlets, the journalistic profession is practised more as a kind of “service” and thus easily loses its ideal motives.
Another issue is the over-concentration of media ownership. There is no media-specific regulation of the threshold of ownership concentration in Bulgaria. The state plays a big role in funding media by apportioning financial resources for advertising. At the same time, the last few years have seen a withdrawal of foreign owners of media from Bulgaria. The void has been filled by local magnates who are usually cronies of the people in power. The effects of this distorted media capitalism have gradually limited the possibilities for developing media democracy in Bulgaria.
As regards content, an anti-migrant and nationalist discourse is practically promoted by almost all media outlets. The only difference is whether it is accompanied with hate speech or not. As a whole, the attitude towards the EU and Russia is mixed. Both attitudes, “for” and “against”, can cohabit unproblematically in the same media outlets. This is also characteristic of many of the largest and most influential print media. In this way, they try to win over audiences with different mindsets. There is no effective control limiting hate speech and disinformation. In a number of media outlets, especially in those based online, these phenomena are widespread. The discussion forums of many media outlets are not moderated effectively so as to limit hate speech. Hate speech has become the norm on social media, too.
Television remains the most popular source of information. Trust is still highest in public-service radio and television which, however, have a comparatively small audience. Next most trusted are the two major private television companies, bTV and NOVA. According to a 2020 report of the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, 33 percent of Bulgarians trust the news overall, down by seven percentage points from the Institute’s report for 2019. A large part of the Bulgarian public prefers the cheaper and more populist newspapers which, as a rule, support the government. Boulevard media outlets, offering sensational and populist content, are very popular. Overall, digital media use is growing, but trust in digital media as a news source remains lower than that in traditional media.
To change this picture, new media content is necessary. The media audience is fragmented and, while the majority still supports the media status quo with its dominant boulevard face, micro-audiences are gradually formed which are turning their back on media that are captured by private and political interests. A growing number of small and alternative media outlets are appearing, mostly online.
It is precisely such media outlets that should be supported in order to ensure the survival and gradual revival of journalistic values in Bulgaria. This will most probably happen in a way that is known from history – through gradual evolution of the cultural public sphere – through print media and websites devoted to cinema, literature, and other arts. The audience formed by such media will also develop an appetite for quality and independent political journalism. When this audience becomes sufficiently large, there will also appear media outlets that will meet its requirements.
Today civil society in Bulgaria is directly encountering the forces of what John Keane has termed “uncivil society”. The latter uses uncivilized language and intimidation, and has captured many Bulgarian media outlets. It is up to us to reject all forms of media abuse and to counter it by establishing public spaces for dialogue where everyone defends their positions by rational arguments, not by lies, threats, and fake emotions. There is nothing disappointing in the fact that these new media spaces are initially small. Over time, they will interconnect into a wider network and become more influential.