EUROPEAN INSTITUTE FOR THE MEDIA

EUROPEAN INSTITUTE FOR THE MEDIA

EIM REPORT ON MEDIA MONITORING DURING ELECTIONS IN ROMANIA

The European Institute for the Media (EIM) has concluded the first part of
the media monitoring mission of the 2000 Romanian general and presidential
election. The project is part of a larger programme on media and democratic
institutions in central and eastern Europe, which is supported by the
European Commission.

The media monitoring comprised qualitative and quantitative strands of
analysis and focused on the Romanian media's compliance with the national
regulations as well as intenationally accepted standards of the campaign
coverage. The mission sought to establish whether the political parties and
presidential candidates standing election enjoyed unhindered access to the
mass media in the campaign period and received fair coverage. The mission
also investigated whether the public could make an informed choice through
the media coverage of the election.

The quantitative monitoring conducted between 23 and 29 October and 11 and
24 November according  to EIM's own methodology focused on three television
stations, three radio stations and four dailies in Bucharest as well as
five print media, one radio station and three local television stations in
Cluj. The qualitative analysis of political content of broadcast and print
media was conducted by Dr Helmut Druck (DE), who acted as the EIM
international expert. EIM project coordinators were Oana Ruxandra Bachmayer
(RO) and Dr Elena Chernyavska (UA). Mr Gheorghe Gabriel Nicolae (RO) acted
as local coordinator. The media monitoring will continue between 4 and 10
December 2000.

The conclusions and findings of the mission remain the sole responsibility
of the EIM and can in no way be taken to reflect the views or policies of
the European Commission.

General overview of the campaign
The campaign coverage was broad, with 12 presidential candidates and 14
political parties as well as independent candidates and minorities'
representatives standing for election.

All means of public communications were engaged, including the broadcast
media, printed press and the outdoor billboards. In spite of these manyfold
activities, the general public's attention did not focus on the elections
but rather on mastering everyday problems which due to the country's
staggering economy overrode by far the interest in political developments.

Additionally, the public opinion polls figures early on showed former
president I.Iliescu with the social-democratic PDSR in the lead with more
than 40%, sometimes even more than 50%, which might have added to the lack
of interest in the campaign. Mr I. Iliescu seemed poised to sweep into the
second round, as much as the PDSR seemed likely to take the office of the
prime minister. It also appeared that the main political opponents of the
PDSR, the ruling coalition, stood no chance in forming the next government
because that would require the coalition with the PRM, a left-wing party
with a strong nationalist agenda, but none was prepared to accept them and
their populistic leader, C. Vadim Tudor, as coalition partners. It should
be specifically noted that the media coverage of the presidential campaign
by far overtook the coverage of the general elections, which reflected
parties' own strategies and the interest of the general public.

One could summarise the campaign in the following terms:
The press showed an exceptional interest in the campaign and covered the
efforts of parties and candidates in an unprecedented way. Even though the
campaign was regarded 'dull' by many observers, the papers indulged in
political coverage by taking in all political advertising obtainable, by
offering paid-for articles of the staff members, or by assigning staff
writers to specific party coverage which was paid for by the party. For the
press this campaign was of economic importance.

Radio. The campaign coverage on the monitored radio stations conducted in a
comprehensive manner by Radio Romania Actualitati, the nation-wide public
service programme with regional branches. These programmes meticulously
followed the rules stipulated by the laws and decisions of the National
Audiovisual Council (NAC). Each private station who decided to be involved
the campaign coverage was free in selection of the format of coverage and
whom to cover. Parties and candidates mostly abstained from spot
advertising on the radio because its relevance was considered minor by
campaign managers.

Television. The dual system of the public and private broadcasting is most
apparent in case of television. The public service TV Romania fully adhered
to Decision 240 and thus met its obligations, which led to a great number
of campaign programming presenting all candidates and political parties.
The programmes were mostly in a monologue format which seldom led to a
debate. The public service television regretted the format and amount of
special electoral programmes which discouraged the audience's attention,
but they were bound by the national regulations.

Private television channels could, on the other hand, limit their coverage
to major candidates and parties in talk shows, and thus tackle
controversial issues and win their audiences' interest.
The fear of breaching the regulations apparently led to a news format which
carefully avoided coverage of parties and presidential candidates. The
audience was thus deprived of the most topical news of the period, the
campaign per se.

The level of political debate both in the print or broadcast media remained
superficial. In the monitored period, the main topics in the print media
associated with major parties were elections, parties' activities in the
campaign and legislation. Such topics as privatisation, moral aspects of
social transformation, corruption and poverty, even if they were campaign
issues, were relatively scantily reported, and associated mainly with the
PDSR, public officials belonging to the CDR 2000, and CDR 2000 as a party
(all in print media). It is equally surprising that public officials'
political record was seldom probed.

Regulatory framework
The 2000 presidential and parliamentary elections were held under election
laws Nr. 68 and 69 of 1992 which were in force already for the 1996
election. In addition Law Nr. 41 of 1994 on the Radio and TV organisation
and Law Nr. 48 of 1992 on Radio and TV broadcasting had to be applied as in
1996. The more specific guidelines were stipulated in Decision 240 of
October 9th, 2000 of the National Audiovisual Council (NAC), which defined
the conditions and duration of the programmes and applied both to public
and private stations. This detailed legal and administrative framework
regulates the broadcast media activities in the election period in a
satisfactory way as was proven in 1996. It aims at fairness to parties and
candidates and demonstrates this by all texts on all levels.

It should be noted however that Decision 240 was based on the broad
consensus between the special parliamentary commission, representatives of
the public service radio and television as well as the NAC. The role which
journalists could play in establishing the rules was therefore minimised, a
problem which might have eventually led to a relatively little attention of
the public to the election matters. Private stations however could execute
some discretion in these matters.

General asessment of the legal framework and comparison with the legal
situation in other countries of central and eastern Europe as well as in
established democracies, shows that all necessary tools exist to guarantee
free elections with fair chances for the participants. The same holds true
for Decision Nr. 240 of the NAC which was regarded by all station managers
as the reference point for electoral broadcasts and was accepted. No
substantial criticism of free air time allocation was heard from
beneficiaries. In journalistic quarters, however, questions were raised
whether the rules applied by the NAC with regard to the presentation and
content of the programmes needed to be as strict as issued. It was felt
that the situation has improved since 1996 and that more confidence could
be entrusted to stations and journalists as to the fair and unbiased
covering of the campaign. This might have lead to a more attractive
reporting and had possibly increased the interest of the public in the
transmissions.

It is, however, to be regretted that some recommendations which were made
after the 1996 elections by the Office for Democratic Institutions and
Human Rights of the OSCE and by this Institute were not brought into force
if they were considered at all. These recommendations follow below.

Campaign coverage
Print media
The monitored print media showed considerable involvement in the campaign
coverage. In absence of regulations directly applicable to print
journalism, the monitored dailies enjoyed more freedom in expressing
opinions and supporting certain political options. This made the coverage
more broad and vivid, but sometimes resulted in a regrettable partisan
attitude. References to political actors were often more tendentious either
due to an express position of a journalist or due to the news selection.
The printed press therefore became the main battlefield for political
actors, sometimes including participation of journalists. All four
monitored outlets allocated much space to the parties and presidential
candidates, for example 114 items on the PDSR and 64 items on the CDR 2000
in Adevarul, 106 items on the PDSR and 60 items on the CDR 2000 in
Evenimentul Zilei (in the monitored period).

In general terms, newspapers reported on candidates and parties' activities
and took paid political advertising. The team has not encountred any
coherent analysis or comparison of parties' and candidates' platforms,
although two dailies, Adevarul and Evenimentul Zilei, published candidates'
answers to a set of identical policy questions. The newspapers accepted
advertising from all parties and candidates, however the team was informed
that the advertising rates for the campaign material by far exceeded the
rates applied normally.

Some of the rubrics allocated to the election coverage were confusing for
the readers, being signed by the staff writers they were in effect paid
political advertising. The team also noted that in some instances the
campaign activities outside of the capital were followed by the papers only
in case a party had an advertising contract with the newspaper.

Despite an expansive political coverage, print media ran no inestigative
materials on the parties' and candidates' professional record, and the only
critical coverage with regard to the 1996 campaign finance was outside of
the monitored period, in summer 2000.

The monitoring team had reasons to believe that loose regulations on the
parties' campaign financing led to a situation when state companies or
companies with a share of state capital were involved in financing the
advertising campaign in newspapers.

Among the monitored dailies, Adevarul allocated the largest number of
articles to the election. Of these, the largest number of articles in a
negative news context were allocated to the PDSR and CDR 2000. The two
parties received the most of tendentiously negative references (30/6,915
sq. cm and 17/4,526 sq. cm respectively). Among presidential candidates, I.
Iliescu (PDSR) was most frequently shown in a negative manner (15/3,673 sq.
cm) and Th. Stolojan (PNL) was favoured. Evenimentul Zilei allocated most
frequently negative news context to the PDSR and the PRM (items in a
negative news context exceeded these in a positive or a neutral context.
They were also more often negatively referred to by journalists (the PDSR
47/11,908 sq. cm, the PRM 27/11,092 sq. cm). The paper leaned first towards
candidate M. Isarescu (independent), then towards Th. Stolojan (PNL). The
candidate who consistently garnered negative coverage was C. Vadim Tudor.
Ziua progressed from an anti-PDSR editorial policy to targeting the PRM and
its leader, C. Vadim Tudor. Both parties were consistently negatively
covered in terms of presentation (the PDSR 32/15,460 sq. cm, the PRM
26/11,288 sq. cm). Among presidential candidates, I. Iliescu and C. Vadim
Tudor were subject to the same treatment as their respective parties, and
Th. Stolojan had fewer negative references than other candidates. Journalul
National, of all monitored media, was the only one openly supportive of the
PDSR and candidate I. Iliescu. The PDSR benefitted from the most favourable
balance between negative context references and those in a neutral or a
positive context. The only party whose negative context references
surpassed those in a neutral or a positive context was the CDR 2000.

Radio
Radio Romania Actualitati exercised great diligence in meeting its duties
under the law and CNA Decision 240 to open its nationwide programme and 8
regional programmes to the parliamentary and presidential campaigns. It had
established a consultative council which comprised all parties etc.
involved where the strategy of the campaign on radio was approved and
matters of concern were settled. These close contacts made it easy to
execute necessary editorial decisions on spots which needed to be altered
or modified completely to be eligable for transmission under Decision 240.
There were no protests from any side.

Special electoral porgrammes 'Agenda Electorale' were broadcast nationwide
three times a day on Monday through Saturday, for the whole duration of the
campaign. Additionally, special 'Electoral Studios' were broadcast daily in
the evening, covering both general and presidential elections.

13 parties and national minorities received time slots according to their
relative strength in the parliament, which ranged between 28 min and 6 min
40 sec per week, the time of the individual presentation varying between 4
min 40 sec and 1 min 46 sec per broadcast. Each party was on air daily. 12
candidates received coverage in the presidential campaign, 3 min 20 sec
daily for each. Parties or candidates not represented in the parliament
could buy air time at the reasonable price of 200,000 Lei/min. Only three did.

This form of presentation was certainly correct and equal to all parties
and candidates; whether the audience profited much from it might be
questioned. From a journalistic point of view one could expect better
information if time were collected and lengthier slots allowed to dig
deeper into a given issue or to debate the platform in an exchange of
arguments with fellow contenders. It might be asked also why all the
campaigning was scheduled after 18:00 hrs. Prime time for radio are morning
hours and a peak at noon and early afternoon. Decision 24O left schedulling
to the station and parties' discretion.

Of 295 election-related news items broadcast on the channel, most showed
balanced attention to all candidates and political parties. The PDSR had a
slight advantage in terms of frequency and duration of items (51
references/3,666 sec), however, the figures for other parties were
comparable (between 1,600 sec and 2,700 sec), with the exception of the
UDMR (762 sec). Among presidential candidates, I. Iliescu fared best (16
references/1,535 sec), with M. Isarescu (independent) following (16/1,146
sec) and the lowest amount of time allocated to C. Vadim Tudor (6/223 sec).

That a public service broadcaster can find ways of reaching its audience in
a more satisfactory way can be shown by the Romanian service of the BBC.
According to the agreements with its about 120 affiliate stations in
Romania and Moldova, they offer 7 time slots with world, national and
regional news, features and background reports.

The coverage of the Romanian affairs, produced in Bucharest, was fact-based
in the classical way of BBC but did not abstain from opinion. Such
broadcasts, being transmitted by a Romanian station, indirectly fall within
the remit of CNA Decision 240. Thus one of its affiliates was admonished by
the NAC because a news item on the PNL presidential candidate Th. Stolojan
(6:00 hrs news bulletin of November 15th) was, according to the NAC, in
violation of the Decision. The BBC staff are confident that their
broadcasts on electoral matters served their audience well since
controversial matters like conflicting polls, the selection of anchors for
special electoral programmes on TV by candidates, the 'hijacking' of the
campaign by the presidential candidates to the disadvantage of the
parliamentary campaign were addressed.

Quantitatively, the station was the most dynamic in terms of broadcast news
and aired the largest number of relevant items, 534. The number of
references in a negative and positive context were higher than in case of
other monitored stations. The PDSR was mostly presented in a negative
context (38 references/6,146 sec), of presidential hopefuls I. Iliescu
(PDSR) and C. Vadim Tudor (PRM) were most frequently presented in a
negative context (17 and 14 references respectively).

Television
The first and second channels of TVR were involved in the campaign coverage
to meet its obligations under the electoral provisions. Channel 1 has the
national coverage, thereby being  the main source of information for the
rural population which is hardly reached by the press, Channel 2 reaches
about 32%, mainly in urban areas.

Several types of electoral programmes were designed, among them information
programme on electoral items, 'Agenda Electoral' (30 min, Tuesday through
Saturday) and 'Electoral Studios' were designed to equally cover the
parliamentary campaign according to the number of lists in the counties and
to the presidential candidates. The programmes were broadcast from 17:00 to
17:30 on channel 1 and from 19:05 to 19:35 on channel 2. All parties and
presidential candidates insisted on being on the screen daily which led to
contributions between 2 min 02 sec and 30 sec for parties and app. 2 min 30
sec for candidates for the presidency.

The main presentation of the campaign platforms took place in the so-called
'Election 2000 Talk Shows' on both channels which lasted between 45 min and
120 min, the maximum time permitted by Decision 240.  The format of
presenting candidates in talk shows led by moderators gave them an
opportunity to profile themselves. However, in absence of any meaningful
dialogue between the candidates and no challenge posed by either
journalists or the other contenders, it became a somewhat boring exercise
which lacked journalistic appeal and did not do much to enlighten the
audience.

This non-journalistic approach stemmed from the philosophy of the Laws on
Elections and NAC Decision 240 which in fact handed over programming
initiative and exercise to the parties, candidates and a parliamentary
commission, leaving to the station almost nothing more than the technical
production. One observes a great dissatisfaction within the station; the
critics want the amount of air time granted reduced drastically. They hope
for a more liberal attitude to the coverage which allows investigative and
evaluating journalism, the use of archive material on topics and persons,
in short, a journalistic rather than party politics coverage.

While providing a comprehensive coverage to political actors, TVR 1 was
surpassed by other TV stations with the amount of news items (128). The
frequency of references to independent candidates M. Isarescu was higher
than to other candidates (13 references compared to 11 to I.Iliescu).
Additionally, M. Isarescu received 14 references in his capacity of
premier. The station dedicated a relatively balanced attention to the main
part ies in the elections, with the PDSR the most frequently mentioned (17
references/2,223 sec) followed by the PNL (16/1,822 sec). Other parties
received between 1,200 and 1,700 sec. The presentation of the parties and
candidates was neutral, the activities of the political actors were mainly
presented in a neutral context.

On the other hand, the private TV, for example, Antena 1, conducted the
special programmes in a less demanding but probably more informative way.
On the parliamentary election the channel had 12 programmes, 60 minutes
each, at 17:00 hrs. and a final round of 120 min. at 20:00 hrs. They had a
reported viewer's share of 11 - 15%. On the presidential election there
were 5 broadcasts of 120 min, each at 20:00 hrs, to which only 8 candidates
were invited. Four programmes hosted two candidates each, the last one
hosted all candidates. These broadcasts reportedly reached 25 to 35% of the
viewers. All programmes had a talk show format. 20% of the air time were
made up by electoral spots, which were sold on commercial basis, applying
the normal rates, unlike the press which reportedly charged about the
double to normal. The station admitted that only those candidates and
parties were invited which had bought air time, but without discrimination
on the amount of time paid for.

Despite this broad coverage, 18 programmes, totalling 24 hours, half of
them in absolute prime time within 45 days, the journalistic output was
disappointing. Monologues prevailed over dialogue, negative approach,
addressing the drawbacks of competitors rather than one's own platform,
were abundant. The anchors, avoiding a reprimand from the NAC, played
strictly by the book, a position not conducive to a lively and
controversial discussion on crucial issues.

Antena 1 broadcast the highest number of news items on the campaign (203),
with all significant parties presented in the news. The PDSR ranked first
(22 references/2,859 sec) followed by the PNL (18/756 sec). Of presidential
candidates, most attention was allocated to M. Isarescu (independent, 11
references/1,523 sec) followed by I.Iliescu (PDSR, 8 references/756 sec). A
special attention was granted to the CDR 2000 in its public capacity (29
references/2,697 sec) and M. Isarescu as premier (12/964 sec). A
considerable amount of references in both cases were negative (22 and 6
respectively). The most frequent references in a positive context were in
case of the PDSR (7) and its leader I. Iliescu (4). The editorial political
option was clearly indicated in case of omission of certain news associated
with the current government.

Conclusions and recommendations
1. Limitation of application for air time on public and private stations
within 48 hours after announcement of the voting day (Art. 46(3) Law 68/92)
favours established party structures and is detrimental to independent
candidates and newcomers. The Law on Local Elections (Art.57 (4), Law
7O/91) grants five days for application which seems more appropriate. As a
matter of fact in at least two requests for air time on public radio had to
be turned down because they failed to meet the 48-hour term.

2. It is a positive change that the campaign period was limited from 60 to
45 days which appears to be still a relatively extended  period, in
particular taking into account that according to the election law the
second round of presidential elections is practically unavoidable. It
remains questionable however whether the dublication of parliamentary and
presidential elections serves the development of democracy in this country
well. Legally and from an administrative and financial point of view this
cannot be critisiced. But taking into account communication and information
aspects, the domination of and overriding attention to the presidental
election is detrimental to the coverage of the parties, their programmes
and platforms and their candidates for public offices. As one journalist
put it, the presidential campaign hijacked the parliamentary.

3. It is debatable whether the allocation of air time on public stations
should be left completely to a parliamentary body as the sole decision
maker. This highly politicised process could lead to undue privileges for
established political forces. The NAC and the stations, which are
independent public bodies under the law, are well equipped to do this
professionally. A possibility for appeals should be instituted. The
broadcast media could approach the NAC with a request for a regulation
which leaves broadcasters more leeway in establishing the schedule and the
format of special election programming. More specifically, allocation of
equal time to all candidates standing election hinder the informative value
of the programme or a debate.

4. In addition, the law on local elections contains the features (Art. 57
(5) Law 70/91) which could improve the national campaign. These stipulate
that air time on public and private programmes should be granted
proportionally to the number of complete lists of candidates, whereas the
private stations in national elections are free in time allocation.

5. The NAC is invited to analyse the effects of the strict rules applied to
the broadcasting sectror in the campaign period. While these protected the
candidates and parties from being neglected, they also left the public
underinformed, as the electorate deserves analysis, comparison of
platforms, critical assessment of the personality of candidates.

6. The transmission of electoral programmes would be better scheduled at
hours of maximum audience, which was not the case with the national radio,
but prescribed by Art. 57 (5) of Law 70/91 on Local Elections.

7. Compensation of campaign costs appears to be governed unsatisfactorily.
If there are subventions available, their allocation should not be the sole
responsibility of the parliament in power on a case by case basis, a law
which stipulates the procedure in general would better serve the purpose.

8. It is advisable that the broadcast media in the following four years
should try and raise public awareness of the most topical political issues
in the country. This can be achieved through identifying such political and
social topics and comparing the parties' tactics in dealing with them.

9. While the print media operated practically unhindered by regulations of
the campaign coverage, the degree of their partisan involvement seemed
remarkable. The interests of their readers would be better served by a more
balanced editorial policy which would provide a more comprehensive analysis
of political options. This might also help to reach out to a broader circle
of readers.

10. The format of political advertising carried by the print media should
be clearly defined. In this campaign it appeared confusing even for the
monitoring team members. The fact that staff writers were allocated to
cover political parties' activities as part of the advertising contract
undermines the credibility and independence of journalists.


For more information, please contact:

in Bucharest, Gheorghe Gabriel Nicolae in Dusseldorf, Ljudmila von Berg
on tel.: +01 411 94 02 on tel.:+49 211 90 10 4-74
email: woody@digi.ro email:madp@eim.org