Uncommonly Common or Truly Exceptional? An Alternative to the Political System–Based Explanation of the Romanian Mass Media

Abstract

In Romania, the political system, itself an amalgam of systems and still shifting in line with a continually evolving democracy, is only the vessel in which corruption is percolating and not the cause of it; culture is the cause. This is true of the very nature of how instrumentalization, clientelism, and political parallelism have evolved. Romanian clientelism and the political parallelism are often an expression of the powers of the manager-journalist or star journalists and not only of media owners and politicians. This may set the Romania mass media system apart from other systems.functioning of the political system and society. Mass media owners, editors, directors, commentators, analysts, and other journalists-individually and collectively-represent not only the political, governmental, and commercial milieu that nurtures the character of the mass media but also the general, political, and professional cultures that define them in the ongoing Sturm und Drang of Romanian mass media. 3 The interdependence between a society's media and its political system has become gospel in the social sciences, whereas the interdependence between the political system and the extant culture is only alluded to but insufficiently studied for purposes of explaining the workings of media systems. Hallin and Mancini (2004), in their sophisticated, skillful framing of mass media systems models, are the latest exemplification of this long-established approach to media system theory.Exploring the system-to-system relationship is valuable in determining interdependence and a range of other issues but it lacks, in the Habermasian sense, the "anchoring" of its mechanisms in the cultural life-worlds of those who make each of the systems and their relationships function. The salient question is not just what the architecture of a political or media system looks like or how it works, or even what its connecting fibers are (e.g. its rules, regulations, ideologies). Indeed, if we are to understand how systems work and interact we must explore the collective and individual ethos of the individuals making them work and that which defines the nature of the systems' functioning, the interpretations and applications of laws, rules, regulations, policies, and ideologies that drives them. Only then can we fully gauge the nature of system-tosystem interdependence, mutual or other effects, and their roles in society, because as John Dewey (1930) wrote nine decades ago, "Political and legal institutions may be altered, even abolished; but the bulk of popular thought which has shaped their patterns persists."With this in mind, we offer a glimpse here of the relationship between the Romanian mass media system and politics and the political system, what it might tell us about the former, and identify what perhaps are cultural-related idiosyncrasies in the nature of Romanian media instrumentalization, clientelism, and political parallelism that suggest further research. 4

(Happily) Living in Sin: Media and Politics in Romania

“…Romania's media, politics and political institutions are co-habiting in a state of mutualism and parasitism that has been alluded to in general terms in media scholarship and journalistic analyses, as well as in the more specific exami nation of three alleged derivatives of the political and economic systems established in this newly emerging democracy: media parallelism, instrumentalization and clientelism (Freedom House, 2013;Mediadem, 2012;irex, 2012;Coman and Gross, 2012). The media-politics relationship is an intensely dysfunctional one, a "love-hate" relationship from which neither side wants to or is at this time capable of extricating itself (Smilov and Avadani, 2012, 64).…”

“…Together with editors, directors, and "star" journalists/commentators/analysts they "exploit their position as gatekeepers of information and news flows to negotiate the politicians' access to positive media coverage in exchange for different types of economic benefits" (Coman 2013, 169). This sets up a reality in which instrumentalization and clientelism are of a dual nature: driven both by the traditional actors outside the media, as pointed out by Hallin and Mancini (2004, 37), but also by actors inside the media (Gross, 2015;Coman, 2012;Coman and Gross, 2006). Furthermore, clientelism is "both an institution-to-institution phenomenon, as well as an institution-to-individual(s) and individual-to-individual(s) one" (Gross, 2014).…”

“…After all, in many instances the "clients" of the media, i.e., politicians, own the media and so there is self-instrumentalization at work on the one hand and, on the other, the media's elites, the directors, editors, "star" journalists/commentators/analysts, become their own clients. (Coman and Gross, October 2012;Coman, 2012). In operational terms, these media elites transform their "prestige into means of pressuring the political class to obtain political and economic privileges" (Coman, 2013, 169).…”

Between a rock and a hard place: Consequences of media clientelism for journalist–politician power relationships in the Western Balkans

“…The impact of inter-organizational ties is of particular importance in media systems that lack the degree of freedom and independence observed in Western countries. In South-Eastern Europe, these inter-organizational interactions are shaped by clientelistic ties and by the instrumentalization of both public and private media (Coman and Gross, 2012;Örnebring, 2012;Štětka, 2012). Government is in control of the public media in most South-Eastern European countries, using them as overt or covert propaganda tools to advance their agenda.…”

Revisiting National Journalism Cultures in Post-Communist Countries: The Influence of Academic Scholarship

“…Io-na Coman and Peter Gross came to a similar conclusion while analysing the Romanian clientelism and political parallelism. They point out that the expression of the powers of manager journalists or star journalists (and not only of media owners and politicians) leads to clientelism and political parallelism in Romanian mass media (Coman & Gross, 2012). Andrej Školkay, referring to several studies, points out that "although generalisations should be avoided, judicial decision-making in cases related to the freedom of speech, access to information and the protection of personal rights in the realm of the media has proved problematic for many lower courts" (Školkay, 2014, p. 118).…”