Media, politics and state broadcasting in Greece

This article focuses on governmental control over state broadcasting media in Greece and analyses whether Hellenic Broadcasting Corporation can be considered as public or state broadcaster. The first part explores the interrelationship between media, politics and the state in Greece, and the ways the latter has affected the development of Hellenic Broadcasting Corporation. By doing so, it makes references to similar Southern European broadcasting models that are also characterised by clientist manners, ministerial censorship, a powerful state and a weak civil society. Furthermore, it looks at the devastating impact of haphazard deregulation and market liberalisation on Hellenic Broadcasting Corporation since the early 1990s, when the Hellenic Broadcasting Corporation lost much of its formerly loyal audience and advertising income to a number of newly launched commercial television channels. Part 2 assesses the degree of political, editorial and financial independence of Hellenic Broadcasting Corporation under the current SYRIZA-led administration. Hellenic Broadcasting Corporation was re-launched by the left-wing SYRIZA government after a temporary 2-year closure, but it is struggling to maintain a competitive advantage and a politically neutral output

Greek ERT: State or Public Service Broadcaster?

The chapter examines the state of public service broadcasting in Greece. While most Southern European public broadcasting systems are to some degree subject to political influence and dependence, in the case of Greece, public broadcaster ERT is, after four decades of deregulation and the break-up of its broadcasting monopoly, still considered by many as ‘state’ rather than a ‘public’ broadcaster. This wide public perception stems from ERT’s one-time role as a mouthpiece of government propaganda. As both radio and TV broadcasting were launched under dictatorships (the late 1930s Metaxas dictatorship and the mid-1960s Colonels rule respectively), they have been regarded as ‘arms of the state.’ Post-dictatorship politics and the restoration of Parliament in 1974 saw the Conservatives (New Democracy) and Socialists (PASOK) dominating the political scene, accusing each other of exercising too much government control over state broadcasting media. Today’s left-wing SYRIZA government also attempts to influence ERT’s output, which is at odds with the digital, deregulated electronic media landscape and consequent abundance of channels. This situation has arisen largely from the political tensions in Greek society since the Second World War. These tensions, combined with the absence of a strong civil society and the market, have made the state an autonomous and dominant factor in Greek society that has to take on additional politico-ideological function. The state plays an active role in the formation of the Greek economy and policy and it is relatively autonomous from society. This makes the system less self-regulatory than countries with developed capitalism, such as northern EU states, Britain or the US. Lack of self-regulation spurs the state to intervene in the politico-ideological sphere and thus diffuse its repressive mechanisms. It is in this context that the chapter explains the rise of power of the media, and the decline of power of journalists and, of course, of ERT itself

How did the British media represent European political parties during the European parliament elections, 2014: a Europeanized media agenda?

The European Parliament election of 2014 generated much interest on account of the rise of a whole array of populist ‘anti-EU’ parties. This was widely reported in the British media but did that coverage give British news consumers an insight into the character of these parties, where they stood in relation to one another and where they stood in relation to Britain’s own UKIP? This paper sets out to examine not only how much coverage there was in the British media about European political parties but also whether that coverage enabled citizens to get a sense of the political positioning of populist anti-EU parties. These questions touch on the extent to which British media reflect and comment on populist parties, European affairs and hence on the Europeanization of the news agenda

Event-, politics-, and audience-driven news: A comparison of populism in European media coverage in 2016 and 2017

This chapter focuses on trends in reporting over time. It examines the presence of populist key messages in European newspapers coverage of immigration and commentaries on current political events, at two points in time, spring 2016 and spring 2017. The chapter explores the similarities and differences in the populist content of newspapers between the two periods and identifies a set of extra-media and intra-media explanatory factors contributing to the understanding of the emerging differences in a year-to-year comparison. The findings show that the presence of populism in news and commentaries in some countries is loosely related to actual migration dynamics (see Germany and Greece), whereas in other countries it seems to follow more intensive political debates, although actual immigration is less dramatic (Bulgaria, Poland). There are fewer indications than expected that the populist tendencies in news and commentaries are a reaction to the intensity with which the population views immigration as an important national issue or is dissatisfied with decisions by political elites. Finally, there are strong indications of the great importance of intra-media factors in explaining populism in news and commentary

The professionals speak: Practitioners’ perspectives on professional election campaigning

Faced with some fundamental changes in the socio-cultural, political and media environment, political parties in post-industrialized democracies have started to initiate substantial transformations of both their organizational structures and communicative practices. Those innovations, described as professionalization, become most obvious during election campaigns. In recent times, the number of empirical studies measuring the degree of political parties’ campaign professionalism has grown. They have relied on a broad spectrum of indicators derived from theory which have not been tested for their validity. For the first time, we put these indicators to a ‘reality check’ by asking top-ranked party secretaries and campaign managers in 12 European countries to offer their perceptions of professional election campaigning. Furthermore, we investigate whether any differences in understanding professionalism among party campaign practitioners can be explained by macro (country) and meso (party) factors. By and large, our results confirm the validity of most indicators applied in empirical studies on campaign professionalism so far. There are some party- and country-related differences in assessing campaign professionalism too, but the influence of most factors on practitioners’ evaluations is weak. Therefore, we conclude that largely there is a far-reaching European Union-wide common understanding of professional election campaigning