Percorso:ANSA > Nuova Europa > Analysis > Bulgaria: only 1 in 10 believes Bulgarian independence media
Bulgaria: only 1 in 10 believes Bulgarian independence media
Alpha Research in Sofia at Seemf
23 December, 18:18
(ANSA) - SOFIA, 23 DIC - Here is Boriana Dimitrova's speech
about Representative survey on media independence in Bulgaria,
kept at Seemf, South East Europe Media Forum, international
conference 'Public discourse in Europe: Can media help to save
democracy?', in Sofia from 27 to 29 November 2017.
The perspective that I will present is not the perspective OF the media, but TO the media. The main prerequisite of its legitimacy is the fact that the free and independent media are an integrate part of every democratic society. The way citizens perceive democracy and judge about the power and the meaning of their voice depends strongly on their perception of the media environment. In November 2016 the special edition of Eurobarometer "Media Pluralism and Democracy" was published. 57% of the interviewed citizens of the 28 EU member states disagreed with the statement that "the media in their countries provide information, which is free of political and economic influence". In only 9 of the states, mostly in Northern Europe, the majority share the opposite opinion. It wouldn't be surprising that precisely in those countries where the media independence is highest rated; the citizens are the most confident in the truthfulness of information, and, something more, in their state institutions. What does the focus on Bulgaria show, outlined in the national representative survey conducted by Alpha Research among 1024 adult citizens through face-to-face interviews? Only one in ten Bulgarians believes that the Bulgarian media are independent. 42% share the opinion that they are dependent and another 25% - fully dependent. In some occasions the citizens think that the media are subject to political pressure, in others to economic pressure and most often to both types.
Whatever is the perception of the pressure, the feeling of dependence of the media reduces sharply the trust in the objectivity and reliability of the media content; but not only.
This reflects directly on the confidence in the quality of the national democracy. When the media wheels of democracy are slipping, the entire engine inevitably looks problematic. It is worth noting that the negative assessments are not significantly influenced by either the education level, or the age, or the place of residence of the respondents, neither by their political affiliations. Small differences in the intensity of their criticism are observed when the age increases (from 20% among the youngest to 28% in the elderly groups), but also when the education is higher (from 22% among people with basic education to 29% for those with university education).
Overall, however, there are no significant differences that derive from the social capital of the people, neither rom their media practices. The analysis of the data from the survey allows speaking about a deficit, which although inherent to only part of the media, begins increasingly to be perceived as universal. The danger of such an opinion is to let the mass skepticism erode the efforts to search for good quality media and objective information at the expense of sensations, stigmatized images and propaganda suggestions.
We can see how this danger is transforming from virtual into real in the way the fake news are being perceived. A quarter of the adult Bulgarians say they are exposed to fake news in the media almost every day, and a total of 71% that they have been confronted with them at least several times during the past year. The people of the middle generation with higher education and living in the large urban centers are the most sensitive to the fake news, and the least are the young people, using exceptionally actively the social media like Facebook, Twitter etc. as a source of information. But the fact that the people feel themselves exposed to the fake news is not the whole problem, not even the most important part of it. I would like to lift the curtain to another aspect of the fake news perceptions. In a recent survey conducted by Alpha Research and New Bulgarian University we have developed the topic further and we have come across a very interesting fact that worth a serious analysis. What I am talking about? 45% of the interviewed Bulgarians associate fake news with compromising information about the personal life of celebrities, 34% with sensational facts of the life of famous persons, 23% with defamation of political opponents. Only 16% recognize in the fake news fabricated facts and events or actions that never happened. This means, first, that the recognition of fake news remains rather low, despite the statements of the majority that they have been often confronted with them, and second, that the focus on the sensational allows to real fake news with not any problem to influence the public opinion. This is the core of the issue of fake news in the Bulgarian society. Closely related to the question of the objectivity of the media is the question of their content and the way they present the different social groups. To measure this we used the classical question, "How often do you notice cases of discrimination and defamation against individuals or groups in Bulgarian media?" The results: 34% of the interviewed saw cases of defamation to Bulgarian politicians or government representatives every day or at least several times a week; 23% - to ethnic or national minorities; 15% - to religious minorities; 11% - to non-government organizations, and last in the rank, the exact opposite of the national politicians; 14% - to foreign politicians.
If we try to interpret the answers to this question outside the Bulgarian political context, the data may seem rather strange. The people with the greatest opportunities of exerting pressure on the media have the most negative image in them.
However, being well acquainted with the media focus on politicians, the results are not so weird. (I would like to mention in parenthesis that many surveys using content analysis have shown that around three-quarters of the news and publicist content is generated by the actions of the Government and the Parliament; thus, not so much the media present information ABOUT the politicians, as the information is presented directly BY the politicians themselves). The personal attacks, aggression and hate speech, the humiliating tone to the political opponent used in live TV shows and in the Parliamentary debates broadcasted by the media make the Bulgarian politicians authors and victims of their own discrediting.
Among the remaining accents, the discrimination, together with the prejudices, are the most readily recognized, when it comes about the ethnic or national minorities. Less visible is the defamation or the discrimination to religious minorities or non-government organizations. A comparison with a comprehensive content analysis would demonstrate whether this is the result of greater media tolerance and pluralism or of lower public sensitivity to their coverage.
At this context of aggressive media environment the logical question that arises is - are there any rooms for arguments, and audibility for political decisions? Just 11% of the citizens say they feel well-informed of the decisions of the politicians that directly affect their lives. A total of 64% believe the politicians do not inform them sufficiently fully and correctly, of which 38% think that there is no true information provided to the citizens by the politicians at all. Again, even most critical are the people searching for better substantiated and more detailed information - highly-educated people, living in the large urban centers, representatives of the younger and middle generations.
To summarize, there is a very strong public sensitivity and deep feeling of replacing the information on important topics with personal attacks and insults between political opponents.
The live broadcasts and talks increase this feeling and the general process of destruction of reputations and replacement of the political debates with emotional labeling enhance the feeling of lack of media objectivity. The poor opinion of the media independence does not mean equal distrust of each media individually. The key message of this survey is that not only the health of the media environment is an indicator of the state of democracy. The opposite is also true. The media are not less responsible for the state of democracy. The independent journalists and media should be more active; they have to search for better ways of defending the freedom of speech. Otherwise, just as in any other field, those who are the most dexterous in eroding the professional standards and people's reputation will benefit most from their failure.
(ANSA).
© Copyright ANSA - All rights reserved
The perspective that I will present is not the perspective OF the media, but TO the media. The main prerequisite of its legitimacy is the fact that the free and independent media are an integrate part of every democratic society. The way citizens perceive democracy and judge about the power and the meaning of their voice depends strongly on their perception of the media environment. In November 2016 the special edition of Eurobarometer "Media Pluralism and Democracy" was published. 57% of the interviewed citizens of the 28 EU member states disagreed with the statement that "the media in their countries provide information, which is free of political and economic influence". In only 9 of the states, mostly in Northern Europe, the majority share the opposite opinion. It wouldn't be surprising that precisely in those countries where the media independence is highest rated; the citizens are the most confident in the truthfulness of information, and, something more, in their state institutions. What does the focus on Bulgaria show, outlined in the national representative survey conducted by Alpha Research among 1024 adult citizens through face-to-face interviews? Only one in ten Bulgarians believes that the Bulgarian media are independent. 42% share the opinion that they are dependent and another 25% - fully dependent. In some occasions the citizens think that the media are subject to political pressure, in others to economic pressure and most often to both types.
Whatever is the perception of the pressure, the feeling of dependence of the media reduces sharply the trust in the objectivity and reliability of the media content; but not only.
This reflects directly on the confidence in the quality of the national democracy. When the media wheels of democracy are slipping, the entire engine inevitably looks problematic. It is worth noting that the negative assessments are not significantly influenced by either the education level, or the age, or the place of residence of the respondents, neither by their political affiliations. Small differences in the intensity of their criticism are observed when the age increases (from 20% among the youngest to 28% in the elderly groups), but also when the education is higher (from 22% among people with basic education to 29% for those with university education).
Overall, however, there are no significant differences that derive from the social capital of the people, neither rom their media practices. The analysis of the data from the survey allows speaking about a deficit, which although inherent to only part of the media, begins increasingly to be perceived as universal. The danger of such an opinion is to let the mass skepticism erode the efforts to search for good quality media and objective information at the expense of sensations, stigmatized images and propaganda suggestions.
We can see how this danger is transforming from virtual into real in the way the fake news are being perceived. A quarter of the adult Bulgarians say they are exposed to fake news in the media almost every day, and a total of 71% that they have been confronted with them at least several times during the past year. The people of the middle generation with higher education and living in the large urban centers are the most sensitive to the fake news, and the least are the young people, using exceptionally actively the social media like Facebook, Twitter etc. as a source of information. But the fact that the people feel themselves exposed to the fake news is not the whole problem, not even the most important part of it. I would like to lift the curtain to another aspect of the fake news perceptions. In a recent survey conducted by Alpha Research and New Bulgarian University we have developed the topic further and we have come across a very interesting fact that worth a serious analysis. What I am talking about? 45% of the interviewed Bulgarians associate fake news with compromising information about the personal life of celebrities, 34% with sensational facts of the life of famous persons, 23% with defamation of political opponents. Only 16% recognize in the fake news fabricated facts and events or actions that never happened. This means, first, that the recognition of fake news remains rather low, despite the statements of the majority that they have been often confronted with them, and second, that the focus on the sensational allows to real fake news with not any problem to influence the public opinion. This is the core of the issue of fake news in the Bulgarian society. Closely related to the question of the objectivity of the media is the question of their content and the way they present the different social groups. To measure this we used the classical question, "How often do you notice cases of discrimination and defamation against individuals or groups in Bulgarian media?" The results: 34% of the interviewed saw cases of defamation to Bulgarian politicians or government representatives every day or at least several times a week; 23% - to ethnic or national minorities; 15% - to religious minorities; 11% - to non-government organizations, and last in the rank, the exact opposite of the national politicians; 14% - to foreign politicians.
If we try to interpret the answers to this question outside the Bulgarian political context, the data may seem rather strange. The people with the greatest opportunities of exerting pressure on the media have the most negative image in them.
However, being well acquainted with the media focus on politicians, the results are not so weird. (I would like to mention in parenthesis that many surveys using content analysis have shown that around three-quarters of the news and publicist content is generated by the actions of the Government and the Parliament; thus, not so much the media present information ABOUT the politicians, as the information is presented directly BY the politicians themselves). The personal attacks, aggression and hate speech, the humiliating tone to the political opponent used in live TV shows and in the Parliamentary debates broadcasted by the media make the Bulgarian politicians authors and victims of their own discrediting.
Among the remaining accents, the discrimination, together with the prejudices, are the most readily recognized, when it comes about the ethnic or national minorities. Less visible is the defamation or the discrimination to religious minorities or non-government organizations. A comparison with a comprehensive content analysis would demonstrate whether this is the result of greater media tolerance and pluralism or of lower public sensitivity to their coverage.
At this context of aggressive media environment the logical question that arises is - are there any rooms for arguments, and audibility for political decisions? Just 11% of the citizens say they feel well-informed of the decisions of the politicians that directly affect their lives. A total of 64% believe the politicians do not inform them sufficiently fully and correctly, of which 38% think that there is no true information provided to the citizens by the politicians at all. Again, even most critical are the people searching for better substantiated and more detailed information - highly-educated people, living in the large urban centers, representatives of the younger and middle generations.
To summarize, there is a very strong public sensitivity and deep feeling of replacing the information on important topics with personal attacks and insults between political opponents.
The live broadcasts and talks increase this feeling and the general process of destruction of reputations and replacement of the political debates with emotional labeling enhance the feeling of lack of media objectivity. The poor opinion of the media independence does not mean equal distrust of each media individually. The key message of this survey is that not only the health of the media environment is an indicator of the state of democracy. The opposite is also true. The media are not less responsible for the state of democracy. The independent journalists and media should be more active; they have to search for better ways of defending the freedom of speech. Otherwise, just as in any other field, those who are the most dexterous in eroding the professional standards and people's reputation will benefit most from their failure.
(ANSA).
