Magazine

Hungary sliding into censorship and media suppression

Since June 2010, Hungary has begun to lose its path of democracy. Several laws have been implemented subsequently paving the way for a controlled media landscape, putting a shadow on the current European rotating presidency in the country.

In its governmental programme for 2006 through 2010, the Hungarian government described the new media developments of the 21st century as a previously inconceivable portal of information. Given the new quantity and quality of information access “the Hungarian public service radio and broadcast television networks are not able to fulfil their functions”.

The Hungarian government stated that the laws in force were obsolete and had to be adjusted to the new challenges. They feared that political parties would misuse the new media outlets only to gain political influence.

According to the governmental programme, the “government intends to create conditions for the operation of the media that might grant the assertion of the citizens’ constitutional rights to have access to information and cultural contents”. Government officials announced the creation of “A national audio-visual strategy … serving as framework for the regulatory and public policy measures to be taken for the sake of renewing the domestic media strategy.” (idem).

The first steps of a dangerous trend were made in Hungary when the amendment of Article 61 of the Hungarian Constitution was removed. The amendment obliged the state to provide pluralistic information to the citizens.

In July 2010, the next stage followed suit. Through the implementation of new media authorities, The National Media and Info communications Authority and a Media Council were set up. Their authority should be extended beyond the audio-visual, to print and internet-based media as well.

In October 2010 the Prime Minister and the parliament filled the functionary positions of the newly created institutions. Finally, the Press and Media Act was published in November 2010, along with an Act detailing the sanctions that would follow in case of disobedience.

Ironically, the controversial law came into force on the same day that the Hungarian Prime Minister took over the rotating presidency of the European Council.

President Barroso’s reaction to the new media law in Hungary was rather cautious, awaking the impression of a wait-and-see attitude.

The President stated, “the principle of freedom of press is a sacred principle in the European Union and media pluralism is a fundamental part of the way we see our societies in Europe…”. He was confident of Orbán’s intentions to implement the law in full respect of the European Union’s values on media freedom.

An official from the Hungarian Ministry of Foreign Affairs assured that “The Government of the Republic of Hungary is steadfastly committed to carrying out the programme of the EU rotating presidency, but at the same time firmly rejects any suggestions that raise doubts about the Hungarian EU presidency’s ability to act and suggestions of limiting the responsibilities of the presidency.”.

It wasn’t until 14 January this year that the Commission officially received a translated version of the law. An official investigation of the conformity of the Hungarian legislation with the EU Charta was immediately initiated. The Charta of Fundamental Rights is binding to all member states since the operation of the Lisbon Treaty.

Commissioner Neelie Kroes, responsible for the Digital Agenda, investigating the law since December 2010, stated that “The law does not appear at first sight to be satisfactory”. On an extraordinary meeting with the Civil Liberties Committee of the European Parliament on 17 January, Kroes expressed her fears that the media law might jeopardize press freedom.

The law would be questionable “by requiring registration of all media, including online media” such as forums and blogs and “by requiring all media to engage in balanced coverage of national and European events” said Kroes. Another critical issue is the appointment process by which media authority is made subject to political control.

Moreover, the new media law is likely to infringe the EU’s Audiovisual and Media Services (AVMS) Directive. The law affects not only national media firms but also those situated in other member states. Therefore, it would infringe the so-called ‘country-of-origin’ principle wherein the single market for broadcasters is only subject to regulations in their country of origin.

With the law demanding “balanced information” for all media, blogs and other free-minded websites would be limited in their possibilities of communication and information.

Kroes raises concerns about the EU law leaving too much leverage due to the lack of limiting criteria on the power of media authorities. A more comprehensive legislation on the independence of media authorities could limit the influence of national laws on the freedom of the media.

Hungarian Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Justice, Tibor Navracsics, tried to calm the waves that were caused by Prime Minister Orbán speech in Parliament. The new law was only replacing out-dated provisions and implementing the EU directive. He signalled his readiness to adjust the law should the Commission find any inconsistencies with EU law. 

On January 20th, the Commission gave a warning, setting a two week deadline to adjust the media law or to prove that it does not infringe EU law. 

Several member states have openly criticized Hungary. These states include but are not limited to, the United Kingdom, Germany, Luxembourg and France. Jean Asselborn, Foreign Minister of Luxembourg stated that “It raises the question whether such a country is worthy of leading the EU”.

Dunja Mijatovic, OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media, fears that “Hungary’s parliament has adopted media legislation that, if misused, can silence critical media and public debate in the country”.

The Hungarian Ministry of Public Administration and Justice has reacted in an official statement to the international reaction on the media law, denying the accusations: “The government of the Republic of Hungary firmly rejects all accusations aimed at it on account of its adoption of the new Media Act ... A common trait of the opinions expressed by the media is that they apparently lack in-depth knowledge of the Act’s text. … The Hungarian government remains committed to freedom of the press, and in no way wishes to stifle the opposition’s views.”

The Hungarian Ministry points out that similar authorities are commonplace in Europe, with members of the respective media authorities often appointed or recommended by the government or the ministries in various member states.

On 26 January, Martonyi, Foreign Minister of Hungary, assured that the government’s response to the letter of EU Digital Commissioner Nellie Kroes would disperse doubts over the media law. When asked whether the law would be changed, the Minister stated that “a review which offers an acceptable solution to all concerned”.

The Commission’s investigation is still going on and can be expected to take several weeks at least. Whether actual changes to the law will be made, should an infringement be found, remains to be seen. It seems that the Hungarian Prime Minister will have to give in – at least to some extent – to the international reactions to the law. That is, if he wants to be respected as a President of the European Council and as a fully integrated member of the European Union. Ignoring the calls for changing the law could lead to a outcast position within the EU.

For more information regarding the reply to the criticism of international media, please click here or here. 

For information regarding the view that the new Hungarian law will threaten freedom, please click here.

Finally, for an interview with Jean Asselborn, please click here.

 

 

Tags: acceptable solution, civil liberties committee, controlled media, controversial law, deputy prime minister and minister of justice, digital commissioner, dunja mijatovic, european council, european parliament, european union, government of the republic of hungary, hungarian government, hungarian ministry of foreign affairs, hungarian ministry of public administration and justice, hungary, hungarys parliament, jean asselborn, media authority, media council, media freedom, media law, media outlets, media pluralism, neelie kroes, online media, president, prime minister, respective media authorities, tibor navracsics,

Related articles

• J@YS 10th anniversary debate: “Will journalism survive?”
• For Belarusian journalists, a time for solidarity
• MADA campaigns amidst precarious media freedom in Palestine
• The EU fails to have consistent policies protecting LGBTI people’s rights
• Cell.cross(“List of experts”, “Company name”).cells(“Expert name”).value[0]
• Covering the EU – what’s in it for Romanians?
• Can Lithuania get past its provincialism?
• Criticism of Hungary’s media controls keeps growing
• Earthquake in Japan, protests in Egypt, war in Libya? Too far away from me…
• Can one make a living as a freelance journalist in Lithuania?

• Home |
• Seminars  |
• Events |
• Media Landscape |
• Newsroom|
• Media News|
• Resources

Terms of service and Privacy policy.

Copyright © 1992- 2011 European Journalism Centre. All rights reserved.

Valid XHTML and CSS.

European Journalism Centre

Sonneville-lunet 10
6221KT Maastricht
The Netherlands

Tel. : +31 43 325 40 30
Fax : +32 2 400 42 20

E-mail: info[at]ejc.net