edyzmedieval
02-24-2012, 14:28
This is a piece of work I've done for my university course but I figured out some of you guys might be interested to see how different life was in a post-communist country, how the press changed and what were the immediate transformations of a society that struggled to find it's bearings.
For the work I used solely the articles of Romania Libera, the most widely circulated newspaper at that time. :book:
Hope you find the reading interesting. ~:)
Valences of the concept of democracy in the Romanian press during the early 1990's
Democracy, the key word that underlines the change from a communist system overrun by a nationalist dictator towards a republican system whilst being a main concept for a national press striving for identity and stability. After the collapse of communism in December 1989, the Romanian press has increasingly used the term “democracy” or “democratic” in it's articles that reflect on the state of the nation or on the significant changes that occurred within the political system and the subsequent reorganisation into a democratic state. Starting with the aftermath of the days following the execution of the Ceausescu couple on the 25th of December, the Romanian press tried to implement and project a change in the perception of the readers with regards to a democratic system and within this main framework, a particular valence of the democracy in the Romanian press that followed a similar path to that of the political system. Both entities were closely interlinked as the media soon became the official reporter of the government on all of it's actions even from the early days of the infant democracy.
The most relevant detail with regards to the democratisation of the press and it's continuous development represents the foundation of most of the widely circulated newspapers between the period 1990-1993. Even with the freedom of the press in it's inception, the transition of the newspapers has been gradual and well founded whilst many of the prominent newspapers of today such as Cotidianul, Jurnalul National and Adevarul have been reformed in those early days. The prominence of these newspapers shows that the valences of democracy has been constantly developed; widely circulated newspapers were not just simple organisations of editorial members, they promoted the values of a democratic system itself through their content, especially the satirical Academia Catavencu which have been strong advocates of press freedom. The concept of democracy was sound from the start: to those who have participated in forming the editorial teams, almost all of them were prominent intellectuals before the Revolution, and thus the “pure” democratic concept was present and their ambition to promote it as well.
A newspaper of particular focus is the reformed Romania Libera, the second most circulated newspaper before 1989 after the Communist Party controlled Scanteia. Romania Libera, or Free Romania, is the newspaper with an editorial team where the process of democratisation and the valence of democracy was convoluted and muddled due to the persistent old framework of the communistic editorial thinking. Despite the remnants, the new editorial team dispelled most of the archaic ways of reporting and gradually developed into a mouthpiece for the freedom of the press and for democracy in Romania.
Most of the first months of the newspaper was dedicated to the aftermath of the Romanian Revolution of 1989; the content of the articles was focused mainly on remembrance and investigative causes of what truly happened during that period. Democratic concepts within their journalistic works were surprisingly absent; it was a stagnation caused by a tragic event that shaped and created a transitional process towards a democratic republic. Democracy for the press at that early time meant freedom to report on the issues the population was most concerned, a shallow approach to a key component. However, as one can see, after the month of April 1990, investigative journalism and pressures, along with critique towards the government, highlight the progress and valence made by the democratic press. In a number from the 3rd of April 1990, referring to a mass protest on the streets of the day before , Romania Libera reports how “It's impossible to understand how our reporters did not manage to give at least a note about this massive column”1. This is a strong case of democratic press freedom and a reporting of a conflict of interest, since the title of the extract was “Manoeuvres at the Romanian Free Television”, whilst highlighting in quotation marks the term “Free” to mention it's criticism and opinions, aspects which were forbidden only a couple of months ago. This highlights the change in perception and the change in meaning and value of the key word mentioned in the essay, a change that would gradually take root over the upcoming months.
Continuing on the same note, by the time of April 1990, the focus of the reports switched from remembrance to current social events. The newspaper seemed to take sides during it's transition; it mentioned that “The Army, guarantor of democracy”2 And yet, between the social events and it's reports, between the remembrance of the Revolution, there was a strong democratic element within it's editorial team that even prompted a critique of the government through caricatures: “The press will be even more free to the point that it won't be even printed any longer.”3 Furthermore, the same pages report that “There is a discouragement of the presence of foreign press at the elections that will be held on the 20th of May.”4 The caricature and the quick reporting phrase shows that the democratic sentiment is strong; the valences of democracy in the Romanian press are more than evident and through this it shows that the fundamental transition is progressive and the freedom of the press is not curbed. The progress itself is astounding; the style of reporting has been changed from the heavily embellished style of the past leading to a more relaxed and intellectual formulation of the articles.
The question with regards to the freedom of the press remained evident. As 1990 passes, reports from the newspaper are increasingly thoughtful and sometimes critical towards the government itself. Initially the support for ruling power had been almost obvious but with the increasingly independent and democratic current that swept the country, this support turned into criticism as the editorial team sought to distance itself and present a fair sided argument. It retained a slightly propagandistic theme in the first days of it's publication but as time passed the support given to the ruling party waned. But this new found liberty was threatened; in the 18th of September 1990 issue, the Association of Romanian Journalists wrote a small editorial to protest against the pressures made by the government against the non governmental publications.5 Even before, in August, the “Convention in Bucharest for the protection of the freedom of the press” reflects the concern of the organised national press with regards to it's own independence, another strong detail that evidences the democratic element that has been developed in the editorial team, far from the restrictive censorship of the communist government in comparison with the immediate aftermath in 1990.
Development of the newspaper itself has been gradual, as pointed out earlier, but the most important aspect of all has been consistency. From an outside observer, the editorials and the content itself broadens as time passes; the editorials focus on the criticism of the government whilst the articles focus on the bringing up of social, economic and cultural issues present throughout the whole country. This evidences the freedom and the critique of the press; a strong democratic component and part of the numerous valences of democracy that have existed and have been developed in the Romanian press right in the aftermath of the Revolution in 1989. Some titles of editorials include “End of hope”6 or “Impossible compromise”7, or even worse, “Ten months of lies”8 and “Opponent or rival?”9 which further underlines the reaction of the press as a centrepiece for informing the population and for bringing to the people's minds the aspects that both the government and the media was confronting with. As methods of communication, frequent editorials and opinions from think tanks provide an ample argument for most of the issues debated within the pages of the newspapers.
One crucial detail needs to be exposed when considering the valences of the democratic press in the year of 1990 – the return of the formed King Michael in the country. The article on the 27th of December 1990 is given front page exposure as it presents a very critical view of the government's which demonstrates that despite all of the pressures and protests signalled earlier by the Association of Romanian Journalists, the desire to expose the issue and the stubbornness of the editorial team to continue with their article prevailed over external pressures to curb criticism.
Intensification of criticism brought also changes and development to the newspaper itself; despite it's anti-government stance, it successfully managed to pressure the government to accept an extension of it's publication pages, doubling it from 4 to 8. Whilst it might just be a simple editorial change, it highlights the power of early democracy press in Romania and it's own view of the concept of democracy within the press. Most of the press was still under direct government control at the time, a clear example of media ownership but despite the watchdog status of the ministry all editorial teams retained a certain independence.
There has been however a marked change between 1990 and 1991. The keyword of “democracy” gradually disappeared from the articles published in the newspaper and more coverage has been given to social and international events. In the articles mainly the concept of democracy overall is viewed as personal freedom and freedom of the press to express and report on everything that concerns the general public. Furthermore, as the journalist Corneliu Buzinschi points out, the government during 1991 “applies the same mentality as the old communist regime, speaking in the name...of our original democracy.”10 Whilst according to the editorial on the same day the “Romanian society is profoundly interested in democratisation”11, the concept of democracy in the press is skewed in a way; the newspaper reflects the opinion of the population, criticises the government but at the same time it does not impose or suggest possible improvements for the process of democratisation to speed up in the benefit of all.
The previous point is reinforced when the editorial from the 12th of February 1991, entitled “Pressures and oppression”12, does not contain the word democracy. Gradually as time advances, the word democracy is used less and less whilst criticism of the government ramps up to the point that there is constant comparison with the former communist regime. It seems as if the concept of democracy is stagnant; there is no evolution, the valence has disappeared and instead of promoting at least a democratic ideal, much of the time is spent by criticising and analysing over and over again the efficiency of the government whilst reporting extensively on protests against it. The editorial from the 5th of April 1991 entitled “Re-entry in communism through the door of the parliament” further underlines this idea.
Concepts of democracy are far and wide and they are left open to democratic interpretation, and yet, by the middle of the year of 1991, the irony in the articles completely takes over the ideas brought by democratic reforms or even the reporting on the freedom of the press. Criticism of the government is so prevalent that by the paper crisis, the newspaper editorial asks whether “Would the press like to criticise the mistakes of the government any longer?”13. This crisis brings up the points made by a known politologist, Edwin Baker, and his views on the economic forces that drives a free press; by driving up the price of paper the newspaper is forced to cease it's operations, but yet it prevailed against the economic hardships faced by the editorial team. Despite the economic success, the democratic reporting suddenly lost it's focus; a public agenda no longer exists whilst the propagandistic methods are still present and the communication of the media towards the public is slanted because of this endless criticism to the point where the headline of the newspaper on the 29th of June asks “What has come of the 1989 Revolution?”14
Changes were however implemented, even if they were insignificant to many. Small columns dubbed “Reminders of democracy” were started as early as the 16th of July 1991 where it reminds the readers that “Any human being has the right to life, liberty and the security of it's own person.”15 and a day later it highlights that “Democratic societies protect those who are weak and helpless.” 16 The word democracy and it's derivatives are still present but sparingly, a detail that can be considered quite surprising when analysing in 2012 the importance of the media in the year of 1991 to a newly established democratic republic. In comparison with Romania Libera, the newspaper Adevarul reports on the 1st of May that the “Economic demagogic is destroying democracy...a heavy blow to the liberty of the press.” 17
By the start of the third year of publication in 1992, the focus has been once again changed; less criticism towards the government and more space given to covering the whole spectrum of elections and opposition to the government. The group “Democratic Convention”18 had been given ample front page space, beginning with the 10th of January; this evidence a growing development of democratic elements, of the valence of the concept of democracy in the press by granting equality between political parties throughout the whole spectrum. Reporting on events, mainly social, now makes up the bulk of the articles as part of the democratisation of the editorials to cater to as many readers as possible.
When the internal reporting no longer satisfies the principles of democracy the editorial team identifies itself with, foreign opinions are often sought after; Daniel Nelson, an attaché of the US Embassy, mentions that “Democracy in Romania needs a much wider support”19 in an interview given on the 30th of August 1991. With the interview given a front page column it does provide further evidence that the newspaper retains it's strong ideals of freedom and democratic reporting despite the switch in their overall focus.
The valences of the concept of democracy need to be seen from all aspects when considering the Romanian press; many times the view can be nullified, muddled or skewed by biased reporting, but by analysing the publication of a national newspaper throughout a whole three years after the collapse of communism in 1989 one can notice the growing and development of democratic concepts through the writing and views expressed by the editorial team and it's resistance to outside influence in a country that was often prone to pressure groups that criticise the government. Despite the lack of the word of democracy after 1990, the referring to the word and it's meaning is implicit and omnipresent throughout every editorial, protest box and article.
The question still remains in 2012 – what was democracy to the press of those days? The answer is not so simple. Democracy to the press in the 1990's was the freedom of the press, was the freedom of reporting, was the freedom of their existence without any pressures from the government, was the freedom of criticising, analysing and outlining the events that were vital for a young democratic country. Democracy for the press meant more than just freedom, it meant the existence of their work and their efforts to shape the public view in a way they wished for to build a better future. As Brian McNair mentioned, political communication is “purposeful communication about politics”; the definition given by the American media sociologist is accurate as the Romanian press shed a detailed light about the situation of Romania after 1989.
For the work I used solely the articles of Romania Libera, the most widely circulated newspaper at that time. :book:
Hope you find the reading interesting. ~:)
Valences of the concept of democracy in the Romanian press during the early 1990's
Democracy, the key word that underlines the change from a communist system overrun by a nationalist dictator towards a republican system whilst being a main concept for a national press striving for identity and stability. After the collapse of communism in December 1989, the Romanian press has increasingly used the term “democracy” or “democratic” in it's articles that reflect on the state of the nation or on the significant changes that occurred within the political system and the subsequent reorganisation into a democratic state. Starting with the aftermath of the days following the execution of the Ceausescu couple on the 25th of December, the Romanian press tried to implement and project a change in the perception of the readers with regards to a democratic system and within this main framework, a particular valence of the democracy in the Romanian press that followed a similar path to that of the political system. Both entities were closely interlinked as the media soon became the official reporter of the government on all of it's actions even from the early days of the infant democracy.
The most relevant detail with regards to the democratisation of the press and it's continuous development represents the foundation of most of the widely circulated newspapers between the period 1990-1993. Even with the freedom of the press in it's inception, the transition of the newspapers has been gradual and well founded whilst many of the prominent newspapers of today such as Cotidianul, Jurnalul National and Adevarul have been reformed in those early days. The prominence of these newspapers shows that the valences of democracy has been constantly developed; widely circulated newspapers were not just simple organisations of editorial members, they promoted the values of a democratic system itself through their content, especially the satirical Academia Catavencu which have been strong advocates of press freedom. The concept of democracy was sound from the start: to those who have participated in forming the editorial teams, almost all of them were prominent intellectuals before the Revolution, and thus the “pure” democratic concept was present and their ambition to promote it as well.
A newspaper of particular focus is the reformed Romania Libera, the second most circulated newspaper before 1989 after the Communist Party controlled Scanteia. Romania Libera, or Free Romania, is the newspaper with an editorial team where the process of democratisation and the valence of democracy was convoluted and muddled due to the persistent old framework of the communistic editorial thinking. Despite the remnants, the new editorial team dispelled most of the archaic ways of reporting and gradually developed into a mouthpiece for the freedom of the press and for democracy in Romania.
Most of the first months of the newspaper was dedicated to the aftermath of the Romanian Revolution of 1989; the content of the articles was focused mainly on remembrance and investigative causes of what truly happened during that period. Democratic concepts within their journalistic works were surprisingly absent; it was a stagnation caused by a tragic event that shaped and created a transitional process towards a democratic republic. Democracy for the press at that early time meant freedom to report on the issues the population was most concerned, a shallow approach to a key component. However, as one can see, after the month of April 1990, investigative journalism and pressures, along with critique towards the government, highlight the progress and valence made by the democratic press. In a number from the 3rd of April 1990, referring to a mass protest on the streets of the day before , Romania Libera reports how “It's impossible to understand how our reporters did not manage to give at least a note about this massive column”1. This is a strong case of democratic press freedom and a reporting of a conflict of interest, since the title of the extract was “Manoeuvres at the Romanian Free Television”, whilst highlighting in quotation marks the term “Free” to mention it's criticism and opinions, aspects which were forbidden only a couple of months ago. This highlights the change in perception and the change in meaning and value of the key word mentioned in the essay, a change that would gradually take root over the upcoming months.
Continuing on the same note, by the time of April 1990, the focus of the reports switched from remembrance to current social events. The newspaper seemed to take sides during it's transition; it mentioned that “The Army, guarantor of democracy”2 And yet, between the social events and it's reports, between the remembrance of the Revolution, there was a strong democratic element within it's editorial team that even prompted a critique of the government through caricatures: “The press will be even more free to the point that it won't be even printed any longer.”3 Furthermore, the same pages report that “There is a discouragement of the presence of foreign press at the elections that will be held on the 20th of May.”4 The caricature and the quick reporting phrase shows that the democratic sentiment is strong; the valences of democracy in the Romanian press are more than evident and through this it shows that the fundamental transition is progressive and the freedom of the press is not curbed. The progress itself is astounding; the style of reporting has been changed from the heavily embellished style of the past leading to a more relaxed and intellectual formulation of the articles.
The question with regards to the freedom of the press remained evident. As 1990 passes, reports from the newspaper are increasingly thoughtful and sometimes critical towards the government itself. Initially the support for ruling power had been almost obvious but with the increasingly independent and democratic current that swept the country, this support turned into criticism as the editorial team sought to distance itself and present a fair sided argument. It retained a slightly propagandistic theme in the first days of it's publication but as time passed the support given to the ruling party waned. But this new found liberty was threatened; in the 18th of September 1990 issue, the Association of Romanian Journalists wrote a small editorial to protest against the pressures made by the government against the non governmental publications.5 Even before, in August, the “Convention in Bucharest for the protection of the freedom of the press” reflects the concern of the organised national press with regards to it's own independence, another strong detail that evidences the democratic element that has been developed in the editorial team, far from the restrictive censorship of the communist government in comparison with the immediate aftermath in 1990.
Development of the newspaper itself has been gradual, as pointed out earlier, but the most important aspect of all has been consistency. From an outside observer, the editorials and the content itself broadens as time passes; the editorials focus on the criticism of the government whilst the articles focus on the bringing up of social, economic and cultural issues present throughout the whole country. This evidences the freedom and the critique of the press; a strong democratic component and part of the numerous valences of democracy that have existed and have been developed in the Romanian press right in the aftermath of the Revolution in 1989. Some titles of editorials include “End of hope”6 or “Impossible compromise”7, or even worse, “Ten months of lies”8 and “Opponent or rival?”9 which further underlines the reaction of the press as a centrepiece for informing the population and for bringing to the people's minds the aspects that both the government and the media was confronting with. As methods of communication, frequent editorials and opinions from think tanks provide an ample argument for most of the issues debated within the pages of the newspapers.
One crucial detail needs to be exposed when considering the valences of the democratic press in the year of 1990 – the return of the formed King Michael in the country. The article on the 27th of December 1990 is given front page exposure as it presents a very critical view of the government's which demonstrates that despite all of the pressures and protests signalled earlier by the Association of Romanian Journalists, the desire to expose the issue and the stubbornness of the editorial team to continue with their article prevailed over external pressures to curb criticism.
Intensification of criticism brought also changes and development to the newspaper itself; despite it's anti-government stance, it successfully managed to pressure the government to accept an extension of it's publication pages, doubling it from 4 to 8. Whilst it might just be a simple editorial change, it highlights the power of early democracy press in Romania and it's own view of the concept of democracy within the press. Most of the press was still under direct government control at the time, a clear example of media ownership but despite the watchdog status of the ministry all editorial teams retained a certain independence.
There has been however a marked change between 1990 and 1991. The keyword of “democracy” gradually disappeared from the articles published in the newspaper and more coverage has been given to social and international events. In the articles mainly the concept of democracy overall is viewed as personal freedom and freedom of the press to express and report on everything that concerns the general public. Furthermore, as the journalist Corneliu Buzinschi points out, the government during 1991 “applies the same mentality as the old communist regime, speaking in the name...of our original democracy.”10 Whilst according to the editorial on the same day the “Romanian society is profoundly interested in democratisation”11, the concept of democracy in the press is skewed in a way; the newspaper reflects the opinion of the population, criticises the government but at the same time it does not impose or suggest possible improvements for the process of democratisation to speed up in the benefit of all.
The previous point is reinforced when the editorial from the 12th of February 1991, entitled “Pressures and oppression”12, does not contain the word democracy. Gradually as time advances, the word democracy is used less and less whilst criticism of the government ramps up to the point that there is constant comparison with the former communist regime. It seems as if the concept of democracy is stagnant; there is no evolution, the valence has disappeared and instead of promoting at least a democratic ideal, much of the time is spent by criticising and analysing over and over again the efficiency of the government whilst reporting extensively on protests against it. The editorial from the 5th of April 1991 entitled “Re-entry in communism through the door of the parliament” further underlines this idea.
Concepts of democracy are far and wide and they are left open to democratic interpretation, and yet, by the middle of the year of 1991, the irony in the articles completely takes over the ideas brought by democratic reforms or even the reporting on the freedom of the press. Criticism of the government is so prevalent that by the paper crisis, the newspaper editorial asks whether “Would the press like to criticise the mistakes of the government any longer?”13. This crisis brings up the points made by a known politologist, Edwin Baker, and his views on the economic forces that drives a free press; by driving up the price of paper the newspaper is forced to cease it's operations, but yet it prevailed against the economic hardships faced by the editorial team. Despite the economic success, the democratic reporting suddenly lost it's focus; a public agenda no longer exists whilst the propagandistic methods are still present and the communication of the media towards the public is slanted because of this endless criticism to the point where the headline of the newspaper on the 29th of June asks “What has come of the 1989 Revolution?”14
Changes were however implemented, even if they were insignificant to many. Small columns dubbed “Reminders of democracy” were started as early as the 16th of July 1991 where it reminds the readers that “Any human being has the right to life, liberty and the security of it's own person.”15 and a day later it highlights that “Democratic societies protect those who are weak and helpless.” 16 The word democracy and it's derivatives are still present but sparingly, a detail that can be considered quite surprising when analysing in 2012 the importance of the media in the year of 1991 to a newly established democratic republic. In comparison with Romania Libera, the newspaper Adevarul reports on the 1st of May that the “Economic demagogic is destroying democracy...a heavy blow to the liberty of the press.” 17
By the start of the third year of publication in 1992, the focus has been once again changed; less criticism towards the government and more space given to covering the whole spectrum of elections and opposition to the government. The group “Democratic Convention”18 had been given ample front page space, beginning with the 10th of January; this evidence a growing development of democratic elements, of the valence of the concept of democracy in the press by granting equality between political parties throughout the whole spectrum. Reporting on events, mainly social, now makes up the bulk of the articles as part of the democratisation of the editorials to cater to as many readers as possible.
When the internal reporting no longer satisfies the principles of democracy the editorial team identifies itself with, foreign opinions are often sought after; Daniel Nelson, an attaché of the US Embassy, mentions that “Democracy in Romania needs a much wider support”19 in an interview given on the 30th of August 1991. With the interview given a front page column it does provide further evidence that the newspaper retains it's strong ideals of freedom and democratic reporting despite the switch in their overall focus.
The valences of the concept of democracy need to be seen from all aspects when considering the Romanian press; many times the view can be nullified, muddled or skewed by biased reporting, but by analysing the publication of a national newspaper throughout a whole three years after the collapse of communism in 1989 one can notice the growing and development of democratic concepts through the writing and views expressed by the editorial team and it's resistance to outside influence in a country that was often prone to pressure groups that criticise the government. Despite the lack of the word of democracy after 1990, the referring to the word and it's meaning is implicit and omnipresent throughout every editorial, protest box and article.
The question still remains in 2012 – what was democracy to the press of those days? The answer is not so simple. Democracy to the press in the 1990's was the freedom of the press, was the freedom of reporting, was the freedom of their existence without any pressures from the government, was the freedom of criticising, analysing and outlining the events that were vital for a young democratic country. Democracy for the press meant more than just freedom, it meant the existence of their work and their efforts to shape the public view in a way they wished for to build a better future. As Brian McNair mentioned, political communication is “purposeful communication about politics”; the definition given by the American media sociologist is accurate as the Romanian press shed a detailed light about the situation of Romania after 1989.