FOURTH ESTATE MALAISE: A YEAR UNDER THE PRESS LAW

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 BRATISLAVA 000176 SIPDIS FOR EUR/PPD S. KORMAN, FOR EUR/CE K. ERTAS AND J. LAMORE E.O. 12958: DECL: 04/16/2019 TAGS: PREL PGOV LO SUBJECT: FOURTH ESTATE MALAISE: A YEAR UNDER THE PRESS LAW REF: A. 08 BRATISLAVA 164 ¶B. BRATISLAVA 47 ¶C. BRATISLAVA 160 Classified By: Charge d'Affaires, a.i. Keith A. Eddins, reasons 1.4 (b/ d) ¶1. (U) Introduction and Summary: A year has passed since the Slovak parliament approved a controversial press law that was decried by opposition politicians and international observers as a threat to media freedom (ref A). Of most concern to the law's critics was the broadly formulated "right of reply" provision. Under this clause, anyone can request that a print media outlet publish a response to an article which they deem damaging, regardless of the original article's veracity. ¶2. (SBU) We have met recently with a number of Slovakia's leading editors-in-chief and media experts to assess the effects of the press law. Most agreed the greatest impact has been the administrative and legal burdens associated with the review of right to reply requests. And while most editors do not believe the law has increased self-censorship, they shared growing concerns about other developments in the media sphere. Most notable have been a rash of high-value libel awards -- mainly to judges and politicians -- against media outlets, and ever-sharper governmental attacks against journalists and journalism. The libel awards pose a threat to the media's financial bottom line, while the governmental broadsides, e.g. a recent threat by PM Fico that the Slovak Security Council might take action against the press, have undermined press morale, and the media's reputation. End Introduction/Summary. -------------- The Law and its (in)effect -------------- ¶3. (SBU) Matus Kostolny, Editor-in-Chief of the daily SME, told us that it is still too early to assess the full impact of the press law. Kostolny said that he typically receives at least one request for reply per week, but has not published any of them. Kostolny said that in some cases where there were factual errors in the original article, SME -- in line with a long-standing editorial policy -- has printed a correction. However, he said most of the requests were technically incorrect, and were thus discarded. Nevertheless, Kostolny said SME's legal fees have risen drastically, as he personally consults with SME's legal counsel on a weekly basis on the requests. He said he does not believe that journalists are engaging in self-censorship, but added that he edits more carefully than before the law came into effect. ¶4. (SBU) Petr Sabata, Editor-in-Chief of the daily Pravda, said that he has received over 100 requests for correction in the past year. Of these, Sabata estimates that 80-90 percent are also technically incorrect (including a request from the law's drafter, the Ministry of Culture),and were thus refused. The 10-20 percent that were not refused were either published, otherwise resolved with the requester, or resulted in a correction to the original article. Sabata said that he personally deals with the request for reply on a daily basis, but he has not noticed an impact on advertising or reporting. He also noted that after the law was passed, Pravda conducted a training for journalists focusing on investigative journalism. ¶5. (SBU) Milos Nemecek, President of the Slovak Publisher's Association, which represents 96 percent of the country's newspapers and 85 percent of its magazines, told us that they have been actively training lawyers for media outlets across the country on how to interpret right to reply requests. He also said that according to an analysis that the Association performed, the daily Hospodarske Noviny (with whom we were unable to meet),published nearly 80 percent of the requests for right of reply that it received. Nemecek said that HN's readership is comprised of sophisticated businessmen, who have qualified lawyers to draft the requests. Nemecek said that it is clear that the law in practice does not serve to protect the interests of the average citizen, but rather the political and business elite. ¶6. (SBU) Rasto Kuzel and Ivan Godarsky, International media monitors from Slovak NGO "Memo 98" who were employed by the OSCE to lobby for the removal of the most draconian elements of the law, explained that while other countries such as France have similar media laws, the Slovak law is the most restrictive. For example, it does not allow the newspaper the right to reply to a reply. Godarsky said it is difficult to determine the amount of self-censorship which is BRATISLAVA 00000176 002 OF 003 occurring. He lamented the deterioration of relations between journalists and the government, as well as the lack of solidarity amongst journalists. ¶7. (U) In September 2008, over 40 opposition MP's from the Slovak Democratic and Christian Union (SDKU),the Hungarian Coalition Party (SMK),and the Christian Democratic Movement (KDH),petitioned the Constitutional Court to rule on the constitutionality of the law. A decision has been pending ever since. According to Nemecek, the Association's legal analysts identified as many as six provisions in the law which are inconsistent with the Slovak Constitution. Magda Vasaryova, an SDKU MP who serves as the Deputy Chair on the Media and Culture Committee in Parliament, was not sanguine about the appeal's success, as she believes (like many observers) that the Constitutional Court is under political influence. -------------- The Real Damage(s) -------------- ¶8. (SBU) Both Matus and Kostolny said that, while troublesome and time consuming, the media law is not their greatest concern. They are more worried about perceived corruption in the judiciary, the increased use of libel laws by politicians, and deterioration of press-government relations. Kuzel observed that Slovak journalists seem unable to articulate the importance of a free and strong press to Slovak society to counter PM Fico's attacks against the media in the legislature, in the courts, and in frequent public comments likening journalists to "hyenas" and "idiots." ¶9. (U) Just two days after the re-election of President Gasparovic (ref C),PM Fico called a press conference to blast the media as Slovakia's "new opposition party." Fico stated that not only had the press openly favored opposition challenger Iveta Radicova during the campaign and was making every attempt to discredit the government, but he went so far as to link the press with anti-government extremist groups. Fico warned journalists that if they do not stop these activities, the "State Security Council will have to deal with it." ¶10. (U) Gasparovic himself is no friend to the press. He has barred individual reporters from his press conferences because they reported on his frequent slips of the tongue, and in the wake of his presidential victory again excluded many from his election headquarters because of "concern" about their media outlets' critical perspectives. In response, the Slovak Journalists' Syndicate issued a statement which said "it is the media's duty to check power and take an objectively critical approach to its performance...the freedom of speech (is) a basic democratic value." ¶11. (SBU) Kuzel noted that while libel laws actually protect the rights of the individual in other states, in Slovakia the judiciary is too inefficient to provide this service to the average citizen. Despite this supposed inefficiency, over the past year the courts have made several exorbitant awards to politicians who have sued the media for libel. In December 2008, Justice Minister Harabin won 16,600 euros from the publishers of Plus 7 Days/Plus 1 Day for damages stemming from an article entitled "Harabin is Protecting Murderers." PM Fico won 8,298 euros from the same company for the misuse of his photograph. In the past two months, the Bratislava Regional Court has awarded Justice Minister Harabin 33,194 euros from the publishers of SME, and another 31,467 euros from the publishers of Plus 7 Days; these decisions cannot be appealed. -------------- Comment and Next Steps -------------- ¶12. (C) The media environment in Slovakia continues to worsen. While the press law itself may not have a direct censorious effect on the Slovak press, it is clear that the neither the government nor the public have an appreciation for the contributions of the "fourth estate" to democratic society. By effectively casting the media (along with NGOs) in the role of the opposition, PM Fico accomplishes two goals. First, he discredits the media in the minds of the many Slovaks who support him, and second, he further marginalizes the already marginalized political opposition. Fico is essentially saying that the opposition parties and their leaders are not even worth his scorn, which -- in a backhanded compliment -- is acknowledging the potential power of the media. But, thus far, the press has displayed a dazzling inability to respond to Fico's ridicule and threats BRATISLAVA 00000176 003 OF 003 and establish itself as a well-respected element of Slovak democracy. ¶13. (C) As we have reported (ref B and pQvious),we are increasingly concerned about growing corruption in and political manipulation of the judiciary under Justice Minister Harabin, and much of that manipulation seems directed against the media. That Harabin himself is the beneficiary of so many of these libel cases is especially striking. Unfortunately, a general sense of complacency among Slovak citizens to the perils of a politically suppressed judiciary has allowed Harabin to operate unchecked -- and if he keeps winning libel suits the media may well be spooked into quiescence. ¶14. (U) In a mission-wide effort to counter corruption in Slovakia, several of our outreach projects, funded from the kitbag of PAS money and programs, are aimed at improving the media landscape of Slovakia. Among these are: -- media literacy projects that will generate more civic-minded citizens and public demand for a freer, more active journalist corps; -- spokesperson training to drive home the notion that a good government communicates with its populace rather than hiding information; -- training journalists in better investigative journalism techniques; and -- targeted grants to NGOs that train government officials in the benefits of making their daily business more transparent. ¶15. (C) In the long-term, we hope these measures will combine to create a more transparent political culture, a more robust press, and a more mobilized citizenry. In the short term, we will continue to raise our concerns about corruption in the judiciary with our receptive Slovak government interlocutors, and will be monitoring freedom of the press, including television and radio, where similar political pressure is also reportedly being wrought. EDDINS