Southern European press challenges in a time of crisis: A cross-national study of Bulgaria,Cyprus,Greece and Malta

Characteristics and challenges to Southern European media systems

This study aimed to analyze and compare how the pandemic crisis has impacted media freedom and journalistic practice in each country. Thus Hallin and Mincini’s (2004) four main variables (the degree of state intervention in the media, the extent of political parallelism, the growth of media markets and professionalization of journalism) are useful in gaining a broad understanding of the context and conditions in which journalism in our countries operates as well as factors that shape journalism in these countries before considering how the global pandemic has affected press freedom and journalism practice.

State intervention takes various forms that can impact on press freedom, such as public security laws in Council of Europe member states (Clark and Grech, 2017). Public service media directly funded by the state, as seen in Mediterranean countries like Greece and Cyprus, represents a direct form of state intervention. Bulgaria is also a notable example of instrumentalization of the public broadcasting service by the government (Dobek-Ostrowska, 2015). Types of state interventionism include measures that directly support pro-government private media and measures restricting critical media (Bruggemann et al., 2014). More recently, state intervention is notable in regulatory frameworks that potentially threaten press freedom, such as Article 191 in the Greek Penal Code penalizing publishing of false news (Papadopoulou, 2022).

Political parallelism pertains to the level of media partisanship and the degree to which the party system is mirrored in the media. The media history of Mediterranean countries such as Greece and Cyprus has led to notably greater levels of political parallelism compared to Northern Europe (Hallin and Mancini, 2004). A distinct example is the case of Malta but in Bulgaria too the majority of privately owned media are closely affiliated with political and economic actors, and tend to serve their political and business agendas (Trifonova Price, 2018).

The development of media markets refers to historical evolutions and socio-political contexts that affect the media, as well as descriptions of the structures and operations, with emphasis on strong or weak mass circulation media (Hallin and Mancini, 2004). In the countries under study, media markets have followed different paths, mainly affected by the socio-political evolutions taking place. For example, in Greece and Cyprus media markets are highly concentrated while in Bulgaria market reforms were delayed for several years after the start of democratization in 1989, impacted by the remaining networks of the old communist elites and widespread corruption, including in the media sector (Pfetsch and Voltmer, 2012).

Professionalization includes autonomy and a clear set of professional norms oriented towards public service, but it is much lower if the media are used for political and other purposes. In Bulgaria, Greece and Cyprus low levels of professionalization is considered one of the main reasons for the instrumentalization of media entities especially by political and economic actors aiming to promote their own interests; in fact state owned, public media in those countries have historically been instrumentalized by all governments in office (Maniou, 2017; Papathanassopoulos et al., 2021; Maniou and Ketteni, 2022; Maniou and Moutselos, 2023). In Malta, widespread political party media ownership, has hampered the autonomous growth of the journalistic profession and led to fragile self-accountability structures with the exception of the broadcasting sector, which is bound by strong regulation (Borg and Lauri, 2017). Hallin and Mancini’s structural variables have only narrowly acknowledged important dimensions of media systems such as challenges to press freedom (Norris, 2009) so we focus on these next in more depth.

Contextual threats to media freedom and pluralism

Pressures and threats targeting journalists take different forms, such as physical, psychological, political, economic, technological, judicial, gender and identity-based intimidation (Clark and Horsley, 2020; Graber, 2017). Research has shown that press freedom faced serious challenges in all four countries even prior to the global pandemic. For instance, in Greece a strand of literature has documented the devastating impact of media concentration on independent journalism as well as the chilling effect of legal harassment against media professionals (e.g., Papadopoulou, 2022; Papathanassopoulos et al., 2021). Maltese journalists were also facing serious obstacles in their work already, due to unsatisfactory working conditions and their union’s inability to safeguard editorial independence (MPM, 2017). In Bulgaria research has long documented the close inter-elite relationships that involve media owners, editors and journalists and media's dependence on private sponsorship (Trifonova Price, 2019). In Cyprus, the broadcasting sector was immediately affected by the 2008/09 economic crisis that forced television channels to decrease their workforce and limit or cut back internal production programs (Maniou, 2017). In this article we focus on issues that relate to our research aims, namely to establish how the global pandemic has affected journalism practice in four countries with already existing threats to press freedom.

Economic and sociocultural context

Research on the impact of the pandemic on media and journalism has already demonstrated that many media outlets in Europe and across the world have struggled to survive financially from the start of coronavirus restrictions (e.g., Finneman and Thomas, 2022). This was a major concern for our interviewees from privately owned media in all four countries. The first months of lockdown were particularly challenging across the board due to the drastic drop of print sales caused by lockdown restrictions and plummeting advertising revenues. In Bulgaria, privately owned media lost a significant chunk of their income from print sales and advertising which the interviewees described as a “brutal blow” to operations while the state did “absolutely nothing to support the media” (BG1). What was an already established practice, namely non-transparent state financial mechanisms aimed at buying loyalty and “supporting” friendly media outlets, has continued throughout the height of the pandemic and beyond, according to interviewees. As noted earlier, in Greece, the government took swift measures to support the news industry, especially after the effects of austerity on the media industry after the economic crisis (Papathanassopoulos et al., 2021; Kostopoulos, 2020). However, as one Greek journalist explained:

“although on a theoretical level this was considered a positive initiative, this decision soon turned into a scandal. The government funded many media that didn’t even exist whereas it completely excluded other outlets with the alleged excuse that they were spreading fake news about the coronavirus” (GR3).

The funds were distributed in a highly partisan way and were not aiming to help the media recover from the pandemic but to favor specific pro-government outlets to keep on supporting the government’s strategy to tackle the virus. In Bulgaria and Greece, previous iterature has long pointed to a symbiotic relationship between media and the state with political, and economic favors exchanged for favorable coverage (Dobek-Ostrowska, 2015; Papadopoulou, 2019; Trifonova Price, 2019). Even though such “entanglement” has been in place for long, it was the 2009-2010 economic crisis that really brought to light the interdependency of the media with political elites, fueling distrust, and even hostility, towards mainstream journalism, as it was heavily criticized for serving solely the role of government-sponsored propaganda (Papadopoulou, 2020; Selva, 2020). In Cyprus, although print media faced significant difficulties due to drop in print sales, there was no specific government plan to support the press and all media entities joined the national economic support plan for reinforcing the industry during 2020 (the plan covered part of the employees’ salaries in the broader private sector). In Malta, in May 2022 the government committed itself to providing assistance to the press, announcing a €500,000 fund to support print journalism. However, similarly to Bulgaria and Greece, the support for print media was criticized by media houses, citing lack of transparency and even being described as drinking from “a poisoned chalice” (Welch, 2020). As one interviewee notes “when you look at the grants, most of it is going to the political party media.” (MT1)

Political parallelism, characteristic of the Maltese media landscape, needs to be considered in view of Malta’s small size, the consequent particularities of close social relations on the island as well as the two-party political scenario that has characterized the island for decades.

Interviewees from Greece and Bulgaria noted that although the pandemic had an important economic impact on the country’s media industry it did not lead to any major wage cuts or dismissals. The situation was different in Malta and Cyprus where interviewees reported some cuts in wages as explained by these interviewees:

“We instituted a 20% pay-cut across the board and the higher-paid got a bigger pay cut. So, in our case it was progressive and we got rid of certain print extras.” (MT7).

The interviewees from the Bulgarian public service broadcasters, Bulgarian National Radio and Bulgarian National TV, did not report a drop in income as both are financed by the state budget, while those who work for the media outlets owned by foreign companies continued to fund their operations as normal without cutting staff or reducing pay. In Greece, for those journalists working in public media, and thus funded by the government, the pandemic did not pose any serious economic challenges. The dominant view is of tightening of media budgets which particularly affected freelance contributors who were regularly used before the pandemic in private media in all four countries. All interviewees reported “no funds to pay contributors” (BG3) and letting go of people “whose livelihood did not depend exclusively on journalism” (MT7). In Malta some media organizations tried to cope with this challenge by stepping up their advertising sales in order to safeguard wages and keep paying staff as well as external contributors.

Two years after the first lockdown, some participants expressed cautious optimism and hope for stability: “At the moment we have no financial problems, we don't get money from anyone and we don't need it, the money that comes from normal advertisers, it's enough” (BG8). Still, despite some return of advertising revenue, the economic uncertainty brought on by the pandemic has impacted media operations in all four countries. The economic and sociocultural challenges were exacerbated further by the political context.

Political context

Prior to the pandemic, the media and journalists in all four countries experienced several restrictions to press freedom (e.g., Trifonova Price, 2022; Papadopoulou and Maniou, 2021). The comparative analysis of the interviews with journalists from the four countries confirms that the pandemic was used by their governments as a pretext to further curb press freedom and restrict vital access to sources and information. While none of the participants stated explicit and straightforward interference by government or media owners, such as directly censoring or banning content, respondents described various mechanisms utilized to limit the scope of reporting and make access to important information and data extremely difficult. The pattern that emerged indicates that only select media were allowed to attend official briefings at the height of the crisis, or given limited access to these, which hampered their ability to ask questions and hold power to account:

“So journalists couldn't ask questions because most of the official press conferences either didn’t accept journalists or a limited number of journalists from friendly media were invited. We asked many times, can we come to a press conference, but it turns out that they invited 3-4 journalists to ask convenient questions.” (BG8)

During a crisis journalists require access to reliable sources and data to provide timely and accurate reporting to the public. However, all interviewees reported significant difficulties in accessing sources and information needed to cover not only the pandemic but also other important topics in the public interest. The Greek government essentially imposed a “quarantine” on information, forbidding official sources to speak to the press. The tendency among most of the country’s news outlets was to frame the government’s efforts to tackle the pandemic positively. A Greek journalist working at a pro government news outlet explained how he knew what to write without having accepted any specific directions from his editors:

“The outlet I work for, contributed to the reproduction of this narrative. For me it feels like I know that I am working at Adidas, and I must sell Adidas shoes... No one had to pressure me to reproduce this narrative, but it was somehow made clear to us that this is the line we follow. Essentially, I kept on doing what I was doing before the health crisis, namely praise the government.” (GR8)

In Bulgaria, the dominant view was that “the pandemic unfolded unchecked and many rules, laws, procedures, scams and deals were passed without media and public scrutiny” (BG8). An interviewee from Malta described the health crisis as “a gift from God to the government” (MT8) which came at a crucial time when government popularity was faltering following the investigation into the murder of the investigative reporter Daphne Caruana Galizia. For all Maltese interviewees the most salient and pressing problem reported was in connection with freedom of information (FOI) requests. The respondents spoke about the misuse of FOI procedures in an attempt to delay or prevent access to information, which was described as “abysmal” (MT3), with journalists getting bounced from department to department if the authorities do not like the request and get “delayed to a point where the information becomes irrelevant” (MT2). In all four countries despite the existence of legal provisions to public information, the interviews demonstrate a pattern where state authorities often arbitrarily fail to give information that is in the public interest and a widespread culture that protects those in power.

Interview data shows that political restrictions during the pandemic were not unique but a manifestation of an already well-established model of governance which allows for laws and press freedom to be routinely violated with impunity. In this model the authorities ignore the media when they ask legitimate questions or require a response to an important issue, and official institutions are unwilling to provide journalists with information. This tried-and-tested approach has worked very well during COVID-19 and beyond, and shows the high degree of indirect state intervention in the media sector. For example, in Bulgaria the Prime Minister at the time, Boyko Borisov, was seen to set the tone for the rest of the government by only engaging with the media when they could be used to serve the government’s political agenda. A participant from the national radio explained that the administration’s attitude towards journalists was simply to refuse to be interviewed making reporting very difficult due to their balance and impartiality legal requirements as a PSB: “When you call the press center, they tell you ‘we will send someone’ and then they don’t” (BG6). This approach to the press was noted by several Bulgarian interviewees as a systemic issue where communication from the government is a one-way street.

In relation to professional journalism practice during the crisis, what has emerged from the data is a new mechanism of avoidance. This concerns politicians bypassing traditional media and journalists altogether to avoid questions, and engaging directly with the public on social media platforms. This indicates a new stage in the relationships between journalists and politicians in Bulgaria, for example, where many journalists have in the past enjoyed privileged access to politicians (e.g., Pfetsch and Voltmer, 2012). However, the unidirectional “monologue” “livestreaming” approach is damaging journalists’ ability to scrutinize and challenge policies and decisions. Several interviewees noted it was problematic as illustrated by this view:

“In general, this type of political communication has increased - instead of an event, instead of press conferences, instead of journalists being able to ask questions, it went in one direction and it stayed that way because it is convenient for the politicians.” (BG7).

In Malta, journalists described the same practices from the government at the height of the pandemic: “they would stream the conference on Facebook and then when it is time for journalists’ questions, they cut the transmission. This is an issue.” (MT5). Adding to the country-specific political challenges journalists faced, were legal issues.

Legal and safety challenges

In Greece, most interviewees emphasize their constant fear of receiving a SLAPP lawsuit due to their reporting. One journalist explained, “there is always the fear of a lawsuit and you know that if this happens, you are all alone. SLAPPs are all around us now and this makes you think twice before getting into trouble” (GR1). Another journalist working for an independent media argued that it is common practice for politicians to file SLAPPs and create a whole “industry” of lawsuits against journalists: “I’ve written many stories regarding high-profile political scandals. The response of these politicians is always the same: discrediting the story, not responding to the allegations, and then threatening of, or filing lawsuits” (GR3). According to respondents from Greece, this pattern existed even before the pandemic, but it now constitutes one of the biggest obstacles they face in their daily work. In Bulgaria, the use of libel and defamation to silence journalists is also well established:

“I've had several cases over the years, I've won them all. But it is a fact that there is abuse of the law and it is a form of pressure and a type of censorship. Unfortunately, this loophole is being used as a weapon against the media in Bulgaria.” (BG1)

An illustration is the decision of the Sofia District Court in December 2021, which sentenced a journalist to pay 60,000 BGN (approx. €30,000) in non-pecuniary damages (Spassov et al., 2022). SLAPPs have become a common tactic, consisting of prolonged and expensive court proceedings that can put further pressure on reporters. In Cyprus, the views of interviewees indicate that many journalists tried to be very cautious in their coverage of the pandemic: “Some accused us of covering pandemic related news in subjective ways. We did not. We were really objective and this is why we were not faced with any legal threats” (CY4). The fear associated with libel suits was also very prevalent among the interviewees in Malta. One journalist who had experienced a libel case initiated against him by a prominent politician stressed that the main aim of cases is to silence journalists, a strong “chilling effect” brought about by the ease in which defamation legislation is used:

“If they say you are a liar then you are a liar. X sued me for a story that was completely factual and I, not wanting to stay in court for three, four years, because the justice system is abysmal in Malta, very foolishly settled. […] It just happens too often.” (MT3)

Our findings are not dissimilar to previous research which shows that 23% of respondents from Council of Europe member states and Belarus experienced judicial intimidation, mostly citing defamation laws (Clark and Grech, 2017). Other laws may be misused with the same effect. In Malta the use of defamation to silence journalists has not ceased since the decriminalization of defamation in 2018 and according to participants defamation cases eat up their precious time and energy as well as financial resources contributing significantly to a hostile environment for freedom of expression.

In Greece, Bulgaria and Cyprus the lockdown restrictions that essentially kept most citizens inside for a prolonged period seemed to have lowered the number of physical attacks against journalists, as the participants did not report any significant concern regarding their personal safety. In Malta, the issue of physical safety must be examined in the context of the 2017 assassination of Daphne Caruana Galizia which has left a devastating impact on the country as a whole, and the journalistic community in particular. The murder of the anti-corruption journalist with impunity has resulted a significant chilling effect as these two journalists highlight:

“Daphne was not killed because she was a witch or because people did not like her or because she was an elitist. She was killed for what she was about to reveal. She was killed because she was a journalist. So, we cannot accept that journalists entering the profession think “oh my god what can happen to me.” (MT1)

Recent studies present substantial evidence of cyberbullying and online abuse becoming a common threat experienced by journalists in Europe and globally (e.g., Clark and Grech, 2017; Posetti et al., 2021). Our findings also indicate that threats to the safety of journalists have moved to the digital realm as the majority of our interviewees reported receiving insulting or abusive messages on social media. These views illustrate the pattern well:

“Reading the comments on social media is always a very sad and painful activity. The quality of public discourse is appalling. Far-right and racist speech is extremely common. There are dozens of abusive messages against the journalist who wrote a story or the media that published it.” (GR3)

Other journalists described the kind of pressure that social media generated on daily practice that is common for our participants:

“Social media pressure is becoming more and more unbearable. You are targeted by strangers every day. There is this widespread feeling that the slightest mistake you make will trigger a digital lynching. It happened to a colleague of mine recently and I experienced it first-hand. Unfortunately for many of us, self-censorship is a one-way street” (GR7).

All interviewees are aware of digital safety challenges and concerns that come hand in hand with social media presence. Online abuse is particularly problematic in relation to topics perceived as controversial where societies are polarized, such as COVID vaccinations and more recently the war in Ukraine. Investigative journalists in particular note that they either ignore completely or their media is disabling comments under articles on social media as soon as they publish them because that tends to solve the problem with abuse. Yet, this is a double edge sword – disabling comments leads to decrease in traffic to pages, which in turn affects revenue from advertising and restricts freedom of expression.