De una religión de gracia a una religión de obras

Opinions expressed in the interviews are mixed and indicate the lack of a clear direction to reform the Romanian press. Cristoiu (2012), Rogozanu (2012) and Păcuraru (2011) think that the Romanian press should be exposed to the real market economy via a proper judicial regulation passed with a significant support from the press itself. This suggestion is based on the idea that if the supply and demand mechanism starts working then the press will not be able to afford deviations as they will depend on the public and ratings and this will bring the necessity for the press to have at least a minimum of independence. Of course, this depends on implementing another solution: the reform of the political class, which would give up their arrangements with media owners and start seeing the press as what it should be, both as public service and industry.

Tatulici (2012) and Țăranu (2012) consider that the Romanian press should build a serious trade union organisation to defend the rights of journalists and to pay attention to what happens to the press, not only in the capital, Bucharest, but in the rest of the country as well. A condition should be enforced that anyone who has not been part of the trade union for at least 2 years should not be allowed to be part of the press.

Savaliuc (2012) considers that a good solution would be tax reductions on journalists` incomes, but that would be a discrimination against other professional categories. He considers as well that the press will specialise and become professional in time according to the public and its need for information. Rogozanu (2012) sees the solution in an increased solidarity of the state media so that it would become a serious agenda setter for the rest of the media.

191

All the above suggested solutions could have a more or less significant impact on the state of the Romanian media. Playing according to the rules of an open market economy forces the economic actors to improve and become competitive. It forces them as well to become more focused on the sources of financing. Current economic rules allow enterprises to continue their activities, despite not being in profit, for as long as the financing of activities is ensured. As such, in places where the activities that bring finance are not scrutinised by the legal system, such a solution could have an opposite effect to the desired one, resulting in a much stronger and protected barter relationship between the media owners and political realm.

Building a trade union might help in protecting the Romanian journalist against abuses, but due to its Communist past Romania does not have a strong tradition of free trade unions. More than this, the enhanced fight against corruption in the last years exposed massive corruption at the heart of the existing trade unions. For example, Marius Petcu, the former leader of the National Confederation of the Free Trade Unions in Romnaia – Frăţia (CNSLR - Frăţia93_{) and Sanitas Federation was sentenced in 2012 to eight years in prison for corruption,} Bogdan Hossu, the President of Confederation “Cartel Alfa94” has been investigated for corruption, Marius Petcu, another leader of CNSLR – Frăţia and Sanitas Federation was sentenced in 2013 to seven years in prison for corruption.

Tax reductions and financial incentives could improve the state of the Romanian journalist, who might start feeling more stability and less pressure to produce quantity at the expense of quality. However, it is improbable that this would change the nature of the relationship between media owners and the political realm or transform corrupt practices, including employment mechanisms, into ethical ones.

7.4 Conclusions

In general, the interviews see the Romanian press as passing through a continuous professional crisis. They describe it as a dysfunctional system not following the principles of demand and supply of an open market. It is stripped of any financial power to assert its independence, it lacks any moral content to acquire a deontological line, it is incapable of

93 _{The National Confederation of the Free Trade Unions in Romania is the largest national organisation with a}

trade union profile in Romania. It comprises 28 professional federations from all the economic fields in Romania. It has branches in all the 41 administrative units (counties) of Romania.

94 _{Cartel Alfa is the trade union of the workers in Romania. It comprises 41 professional federations and has}

192

organising itself in order to protect its interests and workers, and it is mostly used as a blackmail instrument. A reflection of the major challenges facing Romanian society and its political class, the Romanian press is nevertheless seen, despite all its shortcomings, as a guardian of democracy in Romania.

All the three major actors, media owners, politicians and journalists are linked to each other by deeply corrupt relations. These relations serve the purposes of politicians and media owners well but affect journalists as human resources and journalism as a profession negatively. The most affected of all is the Romanian public that is fed with non-news and manipulation instead of benefitting from the reporting of a media eager to scrutinise and unveil the wrongdoings of the elected ones.

The relationship between media owners and politicians is obscure and very changeable according to the interests at stake. The novelty does not come from the fact that the media owners have a special relationship with the political realm, as everywhere in the world journalists want a good story and politicians want the support of the media to win votes. The novelty comes from the shady character of the barter.

Such a relationship can carry unforeseen consequences for the journalists that have to execute the orders as well as the potential of a sudden change of the political line promoted by the newspaper. This is the reason why it is difficult to pinpoint the political colour of newspapers in Romania.

To be a journalist in Romania in such a context proves to be a real challenge, both professionally and personally. Although in the triad politicians – media owners – journalists the journalist is the one doing the work that allows the media outlet or TV station to continue existing, it is by far the most disregarded category. Used at the direct convenience of the media owner or, indirectly, at the convenience of the politician, the Romanian journalist and his/her problems are in fact the most visible part of a very ineffective media system. It is easy to point to the lack of professional education and doubtful ethics of the Romanian journalist while in fact a proper framework based on standards of performance for both, media owners and journalists, is missing.

Overall, the interviews describe the image of a very unstable and un-transparent media system which does not strive to reach certain standards of reporting while having in sight clear ethical guidance. It is a system in which honest, good professionals are mingling with unprofessional and shady characters, many of them already condemned for corruption, in a game which is more and more often lately interrupted by the cleansing intervention of the legal system.

193

In this context, it is not difficult to see that justice, equity and the public good are in short supply resulting from such rogue communicative activity in Romanian society. The majority of interviewed journalists emphasize the financial aspect as the main culprit for the low quality of media products and human resource. Personal desire for high professional standards and moral stand are somewhere, at the back, far behind economic and relationship challenges of media ownership.

Critical political economy of the media, as defined by Murdock & Golding (2005), sees justice, equity and public good as the value to be offered by the communicative activity in society. However, this is not the case in Romania. Money obtained via corruption and mercenary type activities are the “value” most sought after by most of journalists and media owners. Money, no doubt, is important for both personal and professional survival and development. But as long as the Romanian media owner and journalist see money as the ultimate goal and not an instrument to help do and provide more and better quality work, the Romanian media might not get out from its present pitiful state.

It is also worth noting the sense of disengagement of the interviewed Romanian journalists with their own field. Thinking in the critical political economy of the media mode, these journalists are the representatives of one of the most important actors of the communicative activity in a society. Indeed, they are some of the best journalists Romania has today and their opinions describe correctly the challenges of the Romanian media. But their discourse presents them more like spectators caught in a jaded state than main actors in a situation that needs solutions and rapid intervention. Although they are aware of the situation of the Romanian media, as well as of their importance in the Romanian media landscape, one cannot notice many initiatives or ideas about increasing professional standards and enhancing ethics.

194 Chapter 8: Conclusions

8.1 Introduction