Svilen Stoicheff THE IMPACT OF INTERNATIONAL MEDIA ON NATIONAL POLITICAL DISCOURSE December 13, 1994 1 Casual readers or viewers would often grumble about 'the same kind of news' the different media carry. For all the variety of information channels and sources, it is often a limited number of events and developments that are being highlighted and recycled by the different mass media. Thus, flipping through the pages of the Bloomington Herald Times one could see 15 or 20 Associated Press stories, a story or two reprinted from the New York Times, Washington Post, or the Chicago Tribune. On debatable issues of national import the local newspapers tend to reprint articles carried by some larger national newspapers, rather than offer their own editorial comment. This creates a possibility for the larger and more influential media to convey their messages to a much larger audience than their own circulation allows. This is true on a national level, where local media regard the national ones as reliable sources and reprint or rerun much of their news and comments. This is also true on an international level, in which case the national media in a smaller country tend to have due deference for internationally acclaimed editions or companies, and use them as unquestionable sources of information. A possibility is thus created for an issue to be put on the national agenda by an international medium. This paper discusses the impact a story published in an international medium may have on the national media, and on political discourse in a particular country. The study also focuses on the different types of framing one and the same story may get, to serve a given political purpose and convey a desired message. Put to discussion are some usage and style techniques, which, without distorting the facts, render a different meaning to a story and draft an entirely different frame for its interpretation. Case Study This case study offers three different examples of how the Bulgarian partisan press reacts to articles about Bulgaria carried by the international media. The three articles studied were published within a month's time by the Washington Post (2), and the Financial Times (1). These were: Consider This: A Broader Confederation to Pacify the Balkans, WP, May 31, 1994; Ex-Communists Embrace a Half-Capitalist Bulgaria, FT, May 10, 1994; Bulgaria Mired by Failure to Push Reforms, WP, May 13, 1994. Before going into details about the articles and their resonance in Bulgaria, it is worthwhile providing some motivation as to the selection of these particular items, and the repercussions they had in the party press. The three articles are different in content. The first one, A Broader Confederation...explores the idea of establishing a Balkan confederation, as a way to restore peace in the Balkans. Apart from the former Yugoslav republics, it would include Albania and Bulgaria, as well. As the story deals with a regional issue, questioning Bulgaria's sovereignty, it is expected to have provoked some nationalistic and patriotic sentiments. The second article, Ex-communists..., highlights the fact that the present-day Bulgarian economy is dominated by former communist functionaries and secret police officers. As this has been evident for a long time, the article's newsworthiness is close to none. It is the open attack on the G-13 business group, and the Multigroup company in particular, that stirred unrest in the Bulgarian press, and the response was twofold, as could be expected. The third one, Bulgaria Mired..., is very much similar in content, except that it adds yet another company, called Rosim, to Multigroup. Strangely enough, it was only hailed from one side of the party spectrum, while its likely opponents kept silent. So the above-mentioned articles evoked three different kinds of response: a) general disapproval and rejection; b) approval on the one hand, and disapproval and protest on the other, coming from the two opponent political forces; c) approval vs silence. The study also requires some explanation concerning the choice of Bulgarian newspapers to be reviewed. The press in Bulgaria is still very much dominated by partisanship. There are 156 registered political parties in that country at present. Only five of them are represented in parliament, but two of them have an overwhelming majority, and the other three are marginal. Hence the existence of two party daily editions that dominate the market. These are Duma, of the Bulgarian Socialist Party (BSP) (former communists), and Demokratsia, of the Union of Democratic Forces (UDF). It is not the number of party newspapers that determines the partisan nature of the Bulgarian press, but the political messages that the so called 'independent' papers carry. For all their claims to objectivity and impartiality, all independent, or non-party, dailies tend to side with one of the two major political forces. Therefore, in most cases their editorial views coincide with those of either Duma or Demokratsia, except for the wording and motivation. So instead of looking into some ambiguous politically biased comments shrouded in a veil of 'objectivity', the researcher had better have the real thing in an attempt to examine newsroom procedures in a politically polarized society. It should also be said here that the best four Bulgarian dailies, Standart, 24 Hours, Troud and Kontinent, are much closer to the left (Duma) than to the right (Demokratsia)(The rating of Bulgarian papers is based on a poll carried out in the spring of 1994 by 'Bulgarian Journalist' magazine, among teachers at the Sofia School of Journalism and other experts in the field of newspaper publishing -- Bulgarski Zhurnalist,5/94). Two types of explanations are readily available. Three of these papers are newly established, and one is newly privatized, involving communist slush funds, however hard their publishers try to deny this. Furthermore, they are managed and edited by people who received their journalistic training and experience in the years before 1989, when the media were controlled, censored and indoctrinated by the communist party. The Rabotnichesko Delo (now Duma) was a haven for an aspiring journalist. That newspaper had the best professionals until a few years ago, and many of them left the paper after the changes began, to become managers or editors of newly established editions. Part One The first article examined in this study, 'Consider This: A Broader Confederation to Pacify the Balkans', was carried by the Washington Post (WP) on 31 May, 1994, and reprinted by the International Herald Tribune (IHT). It was signed by a M. Mikhailov,an American of Serb descent, and Max Singer, of the Hudson Institute. It revives a very old idea which history has proved futile. The authors insist that as 'most of the time an essential element of keeping the peace [in the Balkans] has been imperial power', a substitute should now be found to pacify the region. Further on they explain how all members would lose their national sovereignty in the name of peace, their armies would be disbanded but for a federal one, and how the West should use 'carrots and sticks' to talk the intractable Balkanites into doing what was good for them. The article can hardly be assumed to be expressive of the Washington Post's editorial view on the issue. It is full of wishful thinking and disregards many aspects of the region's history. For instance, not a single mention has been made of Russia as a possible participant, or at least consultant, in the process of establishing such an imaginary federation, while Russia's interests in the Balkans are more than obvious even to the casual reader. Therefore it could be expected that the article would be waved off unheeded. Interestingly, the Bulgarian media devoted much attention to Mikhailov and Singer's writing. Depreciative comments were frontpaged by the majority of daily newspapers, and the National Radio and Television spent quite some time on it in their evening news. In a similar fashion, they all focused on the irrelevant idea for Bulgaria to peacefully surrender her national identity to a larger confederation where every nation would be a minority. Most comments were vehement and over-pathetic, much in the style of Cold War propaganda. A somewhat curious fact is that the WP carried the article on May 31, the IHT reprinted it on June 1, and it was only Duma (the former communists' daily), that carried its comments on June 2. The National Radio and TV also carried it on the second, while all other major dailies, with the exception of Demokratsia, followed suit on the third. What strikes one as odd is that the radio and television used Duma as a source, rather than the original, or they could have reacted on June 1. This situation is reminiscent of older days, when all the media waited for their political agenda to be set by the Rabotnichesko Delo ( Duma). The way Duma framed the story is intriguing, too. It ran its article on page 1, on the left just below the head, where the picture of Khristo Botev should have been (June 2 is the day when Bulgaria commemorates its national hero Khristo Botev, and all those who fell for the country's freedom). The headline reads:' Close Down Bulgaria, Washington Post Suggests'. The subtitle quotes the 'sticks and carrots' metaphor, only 'stick' has been 'mistranslated' as 'club'. Here are two more examples of similar 'mistranslation'. The sentence "Even if the use of force against the Serbian government is required to install a Balkan confederation, once established it is likely to be able to sustain itself without further help", has become, " ... once established the confederation will be able to restrain it [Serbia]". The phrase, '... Macedonians, whom many consider to be Bulgarians,' has been rendered as '... Macedonians, most of whom consider themselves to be Bulgarians'. The article in Duma does little more but for a derogatory rendition of the WP story's content, in the oblique mood. What followed were similar in content, but lengthier articles in Kontinent, Standart, 24 Hours and Troud. On June 4 Duma frontpaged an interview with the US ambassador to Sofia W. Montgomery, stating that the article in the Washington Post did not express the view of the US administration. In fact it was just a 200-word summary which appeared at the bottom of the page, and was no match for the powerful framing of the first story, whose implicit message was "Bad guys strike again!". Unlike Duma, Demokratsia responded four days later, on June 6, explaining that they had considered the WP article unworthy of attention at first, but felt obliged to offer their view because of the repercussions the story had had in the Bulgarian press. The Demokratsia story appeared in the bottom right corner of page 1, just below the picture of the famous Bulgarian soccer star Stoichkov, who had played another good game for Barcelona. The headline ran,'Paid Propaganda or Dance with Corpse'. The main idea was that rather than a dance with a historical corpse, the article in the WP resembled a piece of propaganda. 'It is very much reminiscent of last year's case when Slobodan Miloshevic paid a European newspaper $70,000 to carry some Serbian propaganda,' Demokratsia writes. And it goes on to prove the major points in the 'confederation' idea unworkable. Part Two The Financial Times of May 10, 1994, carries an article entitled Ex-Communists Embrace a Half-Capitalist Bulgaria. It deals with the activities of the so called 'Group of 13', one of the major representatives of Bulgarian business, dominated by former senior communists and secret police officers. An attack is launched at Ilia Pavlov and his company Multigroup, the most powerful one in G-13. Normally the article would have been turned down by any local paper editor, for it has no news value and most of the disclosures it makes run unproved or unattributed. E. g. "There is little doubt that communist capital is behind many of the leading entrepreneurs one sees in Bulgaria today," says a western observer. Or: Mr Dimitar Kostov, the deputy finance minister, says: "There are suggestions that not all the methods used by G-13 companies are legal...". One can hardly expect such a lack of professionalism from the Financial Times, or that the newspaper bears a grudge on the Bulgarian nouveau riche. A logical assumption here might be that the article was ordered or contributed by a well-paying source. Its purpose seems to be to deal a blow at G-13, and Multigroup in particular, rather than provide information or analyze the current economic situation in Bulgaria. Interestingly, a year before that, in May 1993, the FT published a four-page supplement on Bulgaria, and occupying a quarter of its front page was a Multigroup add. Furthermore, Virginia Marsh, who wrote the article under discussion here, wrote more than half of the stories for that supplement, too. So pecuniary reasons seem to be the only viable explanation for this U-turn in editorial policy in just a year's time. Looking at the way the response in Bulgaria was framed provides yet more interesting insights. Gloatingly, the UDF's Demokratsia runs a full translation of the FT article on its front page, only the big-lettered headline in the top right corner reads, 'Former Communists Seize Bulgaria'. The one-sentence editorial note says, " The FT.... tells its readers worldwide who backs the largest private companies in Bulgaria." Duma, on the other hand, seems willing to bury the story. On page one it runs a two-inch note entitled 'G13 gathered last night'. It tells of a meeting of the group the night before, where "among other things, the publication in yesterday's issue of the Financial Times was discussed. It focuses mostly on the doings of Ilia Pavlov, head of Multigroup." On page three Duma runs a translation of the FT story, 'slightly abridged' to use their words. What the editor had decided to 'slightly abridge' is a paragraph explaining how private companies overcharge state-run companies for raw materials, or buy products cheaply from state companies and sell them on with a big mark-up. Also bluepencilled was a hint at private companies practising tax evasion, and Dep. minister Kostov's quote suggesting that G-13 companies make use of illegal methods. So in this case Duma offers a different frame, trying to distract attention from the story on the one hand, and to focus the allegations on Ilia Pavlov personally, thus saving the image of Multigroup and the whole of G-13. On May 12 Duma runs 2 more articles on G-13, the first one telling the reader that G-13 are going to have a moral code. It then refers us to page four, where a bulky headline reads,'G-13 Boycotts Privatization' -- too absurd to comment. Part Three Bulgaria Mired by Failure to Push Reforms was carried by the Washington Post on May 13, 1994. Its subject is very much similar to that of the FT article. 'By far the biggest beneficiaries of Bulgaria's failure to push reforms have been the people threatened by the changes: former communists and members of the security services,' writes John Pomfret of the Post. Multigroup, again, is in the focus, and another G-13 company, Rosim, has been added, too. Rosa Georgieva, chairperson of Rosim, is quoted saying , "The wine I buy here costs me about $1 a bottle, and I sell it in Britain at about $5 a bottle." This goes to prove the author's claim that 'production is state-run but profits are private.' Concerning the forthcoming privatization, an international banker's words are quoted, "Who buys the cow when the milk is free?" Further on the writer points out that present-day major Bulgarian businessmen's concern is to impoverish some profitable state-run enterprises, causing their price to plummet, thus making them good bargains for privatization. Demokratsia headlined its frontpage response, 'Washington Post Thinks Like Us'. The story highlights the major points of the WP article, stressing the fact that Demokratsia has been the only paper doing investigative reports on shady and illegal business transactions in Bulgaria. Do we need Americans to write about what is going on in this country, for the world to learn that we are going back to communism?, the paper writes. It focuses mainly on the revelations of Georgieva who, some time earlier, had said on TV that all leaders of the UDF should be lined up against the wall and shot dead. She had also initiated proceedings against a Demokratsia reporter because of an investigative story, so now the paper had a chance of revenge. In consistently communist fashion, Duma kept silent. So did the 'independent' press. Discussion The two types of framing of the above stories have been mentioned several times, so a question that comes to mind is what necessitated those frames, in the first place? The concept of framing is related to the one of hegemony, or the attainment of voluntary consent to the dominant ideology. 'The concept of hegemony has little meaning unless paired with the notion of domination'. As D. Hallin writes, according to the neo-Marxist perspective hegemony plays a double role of maintaining the dominant political ideology and explaining the behavior of the media. 'Dominant ideology' always seem to be a recurrent term.Yet the case under discussion here is a bit different. At present no political ideology in Bulgaria can be called dominant. Since late 1992 there have been two conflicting ideologies, and a government trying to find a compromise between the two, thus promoting a third one. An explanation of the current political situation is needed here. The Union of Democratic Forces won the latest elections in October 1991, and should formally be considered the ruling political force in the country. However, it has been the 'formerly', and not 'formally' ruling force, since a number of its MPs defected the UDF parliamentary faction and pronounced themselves 'independent'. On key issues they began voting with the BSP, thus forming a new parliamentary majority, while the democratically elected majority became a minority. The UDF government was forced to resign, and a new cabinet was put together under the mandate of the Movement for Rights and Freedoms, the party of the ethnic Turks, which is the third parliamentary force. Headed by Lyuben Berov, professor of economics, this cabinet accomplished virtually nothing, with regard to the most pressing issues facing Bulgaria -- privatization, stabilization of the state sector of the economy, the curbing of inflation and the re-scheduling of payments on the country's external debt. What Berov's cabinet did accomplish was to create a situation of stagnation and administrative impotence, which was the ideal environment for the thriving of businesses whose major goal was to accrete profits through unfair dealing with the crisis-ridden state manufacturers, and through tax evasion. To talk about a dominant ideology in such a situation means to point to at least three such ideologies, having an impact on the mass media in Bulgaria, and on public opinion. These are: a) the business-oriented one, promoting capitalism in its most extreme form of the initial accumulation of capital; b) the ideology of the BSP which, in the fashion of communist demagoguery, is shrouded in beautiful words with little meaning. The party has been trying to reconcile former communist ideals with those of modern social democracy, in an attempt to maintain a hold of both its younger and aging electors. c) the ideology of the UDF, an amalgamation of contemporary liberalism, radicalism, conservatism and monarchism. The absurdity of such a combination is justified insofar as the UDF coalition was founded as an anti-communist political formation. The liberal and radical lines, however, seem to have gained the upper hand in it. As in the rest of Eastern Europe, all political forces promote 'democracy and a market-oriented economy', which in itself is more of a cliche than a mandatory combination. Generally speaking, the situation in Bulgaria over the past five years can be described as an 'ideological schism'. Since the old ideology collapsed, no longer capable of influencing the masses, no ideology has been established as the dominant one yet. In state administration, there has been a tendency towards coalition governments of different political forces, sharing the responsibility for the unpopular steps needed to overcome the crisis. The result of such a shared responsibility is usually irresponsibility, and the five administrations Bulgaria has had since 1989 appear to have served different groups interests, rather than the all-national ones. One exception can be made for Filip Dimitrov s cabinet of the UDF, which ruled between October 1991 and November 1992. The UDF made an explicit statement they were assuming the responsibility for the country s plight and would try to work towards its betterment. They did make some definite steps forward in terms of privatization and reaching an agreement with the creditor banks. But that administration, too, was torn between pressures from outside and tension inside the coalition itself, so it only survived for one year. This political disorder has been mirrored in the mass media. In their coverage political discourse resembles a babble of dissonant voices which hardly ever hit on a harmonious chord. In terms of this study, some harmony appeared to have been achieved in the response to the first article, where the general sentiment in all media coverage was one of negation and denunciation. Even then, however, two opponent framing patterns were clearly distinguishable. To be able to examine these patterns closer, a few words about framing are needed. 'Framing essentially involves selection and salience. To frame is to select some aspects of a perceived reality and make them more salient in a communicating text, in such a way as to promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation and/or treatment recommendation for the item described.' Frames define problems, diagnose causes, make moral judgements and suggest remedies. Let us try to apply this model to Part One of the present case study. Duma has selected the following aspects of the WP article: 1) Bulgaria will lose its national independence; 2) The idea was published in the Washington Post; 3) the use of force is suggested. These aspects have been made salient by emphasizing them in the headline and the subtitle in the following way: 1) Close Down Bulgaria... 2) 'Washington Post' Suggests; Not very many people in Bulgaria know what the Washington Post is, but everybody knows that Washington is the capital of the U.S., so the context is "the threat comes from Washington . 3) As has already been mentioned, in the Bulgarian translation 'stick' has become 'club', emphasizing the use of force to make Bulgaria join a possible confederation. Choosing to make these particular aspects salient Duma defines the problem as 'Washington threatens to force Bulgaria to join a Balkan confederation'. The cause for the emergence of the WP article is diagnosed as 'the continuing war in Bosnia and the need for the West to do something'. As for a moral judgement, it is implied in the ironic tone if the Duma story, suggesting that the WP article is worthy of derision. Demokratsia, for its part, stresses the fact that the WP article is more of a piece of propaganda and less of an attempt to resuscitate an idea abandoned long ago as inapplicable. The very headline has the phrase 'paid propaganda' in it. Further on a parallel is drawn between the present publication and a case of the previous year, when Slobodan Miloshevic paid a Western newspaper to carry some pro-Serb propaganda. Yet further there is a hint that the very idea of a confederation of the south Slavs is reminiscent of that of pan-Slavism, 'resurrected lately by Moscow and the Bulgarian socialists'. So Demokratsia defines the problem as 'the former communists conspire to re-establish their influence in the Balkans through the idea of a confederation'. Without explicitly stating it, Demokratsia diagnoses the cause as 'the process of recommunization throughout Eastern Europe'. The moral judgement is one of disrespect, and the implied solution is to ignore such ideas as propaganda and conspiracy, which is very much in tune with the UDF's policy line of extreme anti-communism. Concerning Part Two of the case study, there are again two completely different frames. Demokratsia gives prominence to the fact that the market transition in Bulgaria is dominated by former communists and secret police officers. In the very headline the paper offers a translation of 'embrace' which is much closer to 'seize'. Below the highlighted translated version of the FT article Demokratsia carries another story, entitled 'G-13 Split into Three'. The message is that due to the disclosures made in the FT story the group is likely disintegrate, thus admitting their guilt. So Demokratsia defines the problem as 'the former communists dominate Bulgarian business'. The cause, just like in the FT article, has been diagnosed as 'those were the people who had access to communists bank accounts'. The moral message is that businessmen as those in G-13 are corrupt, and their doings must be unveiled and prosecuted ( suggested remedy). Duma, on the other hand, has selected certain parts from the FT story to be made 'less' rather than 'more salient', choosing the most radical approach of crossing them out. These are the paragraphs telling of the different ways G-13 companies apply to profit at the expense of state manufacturers, and to evade taxes. The paper tries to bury the FT article by carrying three stories about G-13, emphasizing that a lot of important and meaningful activity is going on within the group, and the FT article is only a minor irritant. Thus, belittling the problem Duma denies its existence altogether (a genuine stalinist approach, "no man -- no problem"). This tactic is clearly apparent in the response Duma gave to the third article in this study, which was no response at all. Demokratsia, for its part, indulges in having yet another go at Rosa Georgieva. The paper had been carrying quite a number of stories before, condemning the ways of 'business people' like Pavlov and Georgieva. In this case it uses the WP article to reaffirm the correctness of its own editorial policy. It is worthwhile explaining why all the above-mentioned framing patterns have been necessary. By the time the three articles discussed here were published it had become clear that there were going to be fresh parliamentary elections by the end of the year. The cabinet of Lyuben Berov was virtually inoperative, failing to muster the parliamentary support it needed. therefore the situation was a pre-election one and the press was already tuning in to campaigning. 'The media are the major primary sources of national political information; for most mass media provide the best -- and only -- easily available approximation of ever-changing political realities'. With the rapidly changing political scene in Bulgaria over the past five years the media have been concerned, and much more than elsewhere, with the maximum utilization of their agenda-setting function. Mirroring the polarized political discourse ('discord' would be a better term), the media have been committed to making use of each and every opportunity to attack their opponents. This is why the articles in the FT and the WP were more than welcome, to reinforce or render credibility to similar materials, generated by domestic sources. Furthermore, as all three articles are of questionable quality, it is unlikely that they had been solicited by the papers which ran them. Rather, a guess can be made that they were planted in the FT and WP to put a regional or domestic issue on the national agenda. 'Plant' hypotheses are, as a rule, hard to prove, so they should either be accepted axiomatically, or abandoned altogether. One way or another, what is noteworthy here is that a national issue can be put on the national agenda by an international medium, and very successfully at that. And if such an opportunity can be used, it can easily be abused, too.