Mediapool: Bulgaria is at the bottom of the Press Freedom Index of “Reporters Without Borders” (RWB) within the EU member states. An inefficient judicial system and corruption have been identified as the main obstacles to freedom of expression. Control over the media by oligarchs and politicians is also a major problem and the media concentration by the businessman and the DPS MP Delyan Peevski is seen as an example for the market monopolisation. How do you see this situation?
HS: From the perspective of my experience and the German media system the media situation in Bulgaria is difficult. You know about the 111th place, the last in the ranking among the EU countries. This situation has not even improved, but worsened in recent years and is indeed a very sad situation for an EU Member State. Unfortunately, Bulgaria is not an isolated case. The situation is similar in all countries in South East Europe. In my opinion, every democratic institution in Bulgaria should have the interest and motivation to improve its score in the ranking. I think every democrat should be aware that media freedom is one of the most important elements of any democracy. The aim of our Media Programme is to help the work of journalists and the media. We are glad to support media freedom.
Mediapool: In a few weeks, the deadline set by the Bulgarian parliament for the Bulgarian government to draw a "plan for the media development" will expire. In your opinion, is it possible that such a problem-solving tactic will work well?
HS: This is at least a signal and a glimmer of hope. Because, apparently, the difficult situation of the media in Bulgaria is also perceived as a problem in the political circles. The media landscape cannot be observed separately from the society. And that's why the situation in other South East European countries is similar, because they are all going through a long process of transformation from a communist system to a democracy. The issue with the press is a challenge for the whole society because the awareness for the need of free media must be raised. However, I am skeptical when there is a symbiosis between politics and media. However, one has to see that politicians determine the orientation of the society as a whole. So it would be good, when the political circles develop serious motivation to stand up for media freedom.
Mediapool: So you see a symbiosis between politics and media in Bulgaria?
HS: Yes, unfortunately. This is a fundamental problem in the whole region of South East Europe. Our Media Programme monitors the situation in ten countries in total. This mixture of media, oligarchs and politics makes the media situation really difficult. In principle, investments in the media are of course necessary. However, investors should be aware that the media must be free. A good example of this is Jeff Bezos, the owner of "Amazon", who bought the "Washington Post". He invests in the established newspaper, that is rich in tradition, and gives journalists freedom. This model is good because print media in particular experience economic and financial difficulties worldwide.
Mediapool: What is the situation of the public service media, especially in the countries where you see a symbiosis between politics and media?
HS: This is a special case. I am a big advocate of public service broadcasting. I have worked for such broadcasters in Germany for 15 years. Public service media channels, as I know them from Germany, are an important part of democracy - if they can work independently and are well financed.
Mediapool: There has been great turmoil in the public service media in recent years. Bulgarian National Television (BNT) is practically bankrupt and its director is proposing changes to the law so that television can get more money from the state while it foregoes commercial advertising. The same applies to the Bulgarian National Radio (BNR). In your opinion, is this the right approach to stabilising the public service media?
HS: There is an ongoing discussion about the funding of public service media across Europe, including Germany as well. In my opinion, completely independent broadcasters can only exist through the licence fee model. Only in this case public service broadcasters can be the spokesperson of those who pay the fees. However, everyone needs to understand that independent public service broadcasting is important for the society as a whole. Last year we conducted a survey across South East Europe. Two thirds of the respondents indicated that public service media is an important part of the democratic society; in Bulgaria, 80 percent thought so. At the same time, however, the licence fee model received the least approval in the survey. Few people are willing to pay for this model. However, if we want to have free and well-funded public service media, we also need to find a way how to achieve this. Public service media should be a source of objective, serious and credible information, especially amidst false news.
If the licence fee model is not enforceable, another model should be found. In principle, there is nothing wrong with the funding of public service media through the state budget. There are countries in Europe where this is the case. If this model is chosen, however, the law must stipulate that the funding is constant and should not change every year. It must also be ensured by law that no politician is allowed to influence the media.
Another risk of political influence lies in the choice of supervisory bodies, which are mostly determined by the political circles. Here I would like to refer to the German model. We also have broadcasting councils that elect the directors general and set the budgets, but do not exercise any control, either directly or indirectly, over the content of reporting. In Germany, these councils are practically a mirror of the society. Depending on the broadcaster, they have more than 30 members who are nominated and selected by important social groups.
Read the whole interview here