Washington Post not unbiased either -- Hungary media law

Remove all ads!

But the key difference is that what you bemoan in the US it is largely self-imposed (i.e. voluntary), whereas in Hungary it will be government imposed (i.e. coercive), by threat of fine. Major difference. Add to that that the US elites determining coverage are bipartisan, much unlike Hungaria's oversight body which is stacked with loyalists of one party. There is a vast structural difference between the two, as well as in power dynamics. It may have in your eyes comparable results, but the measures themselves are very much incomparable.

If you seek suitable thing to compare Hungary's NMHH to, that would probably be the FCC (think 'nipplegate'), which has a smaller mandate (that doesn't include printed media for instance).

Besides, music censorship is just the start. They won't limit themselves to that - the broad mandate and great discretion allotted to them will make sure of that. I for my part can think of many things in media that "could influence the development of minors/ political debate in a negative way" if I only put my mind to it.

Sky is the limit. For instance, Belarus censors, the Morality Office, has declared the band Rammstein a 'public enemy' since Rammstein's music could "destroy the Belarusian state system".

 

That's exactly right. They are the ones who are supposed to regulate the media for the pulbic good. Here's a good example of what I was referring to:

You can call this type of corporate censorship "self-imposed" but it is really the media companies imposing censorship on the public by way of controlling basic access. The FCC is actually moving against censorship by corporate mandate for the public good.

http://www.thenewnewinternet.com/2010/12/21/fcc-passes-first-rules-for-fair-play-on-the-internet/

 

Can you, in light of what I collected about Orbán's government and what you can observe about their partisans here, envision the Fisecz controlled NMHH to do something like that?

 

And the government was elected through democratic and voluntary elections, which means they represent their voters. Whether this hurts or not, this is how a democracy works. You authorize a group of people to lead your country.

Which party won the democratic elections, with a clear program. I just remind readers to these facts because these facts may be disguised by the double standard based, incompetent approaches of Ragusa.

(This is not a question to Ragusa, as he is blind by his naive approach, but a rhetorical question to the other reader of this topic: ) If something is done voluntarily by the elite in the USA, that's fine, but when the same thing is done by a democratically elected government in Hungary, that is not ?!

About (a), yes it was technical standardisation, but basically, while Europe was "forced" to do it because of the centralized approach, in the USA, a new law guaranteed that they did NOT need to cooperate. And they didn't. (It's another question that since then, voluntary cooperations also became much more common for obvious reasons, but the point of my post was not this.) About (b), as we have seen above, no, companies were NOT allowed to "come up" with something else in my historical GSM example, because in Europe the control was stricter. About content regulation, my example had nothing to do with that, the analogy -- as it was obvious -- was merely for the fact that sometimes the stricter control of Europe over market economy had BETTER results than the totally free competition in USA. Basically, in my example, the technical standardization was "guaranteed" centrally in Europe, because the European companies didn't have the same choices as their US counterparts had. For his reputation's sake, Ragusa at least should not poke his nose to areas TOTALLY unknown for him (Telecommunication)! It's one thing he is an amateur regarding Hungarian media law, but being "clever" in other fields as well such as Telecommunication... Hard to believe...

This is exactly one of the main points in my approach too: powerful economic lobby has influenced the most important decisions in Hungary until now, often not taking into account many important aspects (such as children, yes). (Not that Orban doesn't have his supporting elite, but his decisions prove for the time being that he really wants to develop the whole country, not just to fill his pockets with money.) Basically, is an informal elite of influential forces better to dictate than a government elected by the people? Yes, the informal elite is much more invisible and silent WHILE DICTATING A LOT OF THINGS than a stable, self-confident government. I hope many readers (who I haven't convinced yet) will consider this point. Isn't that a fond delusion to say that a silent but powerful elite lobby is better and less "dictatoric" than an organized, democratically elected self-confident government?

Yes, and it's very correct that such songs are forbidden before 9 PM. It is not the same as making them forbidden in the country: you can buy it and listen to it whenever you want, but radios which are listened to by lots of people should not broadcast songs with such a text before 9 PM. This is a decision that is not desired by the radio companies and others due to the estimated profit losses (=> yes, interests of companies and their lobbies are violated), hence the "protest" about it.

It is not prohibited, it is allowed after 9 PM which is very correct, here is it's complete text (notice the lot of asterisks put by the Sorcerer's Place forum filter!). Deciding such things is the internal affair of the Hungarian nation and its democratically elected leaders and decision makers.

 

Isn't that a fond delusion to say that a majority appointed partisan body* will provide the solution to the aforementioned set of problems?

You would p*ss and moan in horror if the dreaded Bolsheviks controlled the NMHH. But since Fidecz does it, everything is ok, after all, aware of the risks of giving freedoms away the (representatives of the) Hungarian citizens decided to risk this time.

Spoiler

* ... that will continue to reflect that majority even when majorities change - by appointing the head for 9 years they made her election proof.

 

I wonder how Ragusa would "p*** and moan" if Nazis controlled the German media authority?!

Ragusa "collected" anything about Orban's government?! Half of those things are practically lies, because they are too incredible to be called "speculations" (implying Orban's party may be indirectly related to antisemitism? The biggest lie I ever heard!). Even the blind can see Ragusa is a total amateur for Hungary. In randomly structured "list" posts, he listed things according to his taste. Ragusa should know that if anyone is going to form any opinion about Orbán's government, then it will be after an own research...

Interesting that a question is answered with another question. (Usually, it is a trick by those who try to hijack the problem from the subject of the original question; i.e. to avoid the need to answer.) It is even worse that the newly added question does not even use factual terms in it: that the Hungarian government is a "partisan body" is not a fact, it is how Ragusa SUBJECTIVELY qualifies (characterizes) the democratically elected Hungarian government. So the rhetorical question to everyone remains the same (those who're interested should read Chandos' post again as well):

 

Yes, it's trickery! Except that in the next sentence I provided an answer to that question already ... oh never mind ... TRICKERY!

The partisan body I was very clearly talking about is not the government and not the parliament but the Fidecz appointed NMHH. The NMHH head Annamária Szalai is a long time Orbán ally and for the next 9 years she will head the agency.

Some more of the stuff that I collected, giving some insight into the genesis of this law:

Another gem:

* Very important point: It means that as originally written, any outlet hit by a fine would have to pay, even when the decision over the legality of the fine is still pending in court (i.e. they'd have to pay first, even though a fine may well be found to be illegal; in the time until the court decides that cash flow drain of a fine could have already put an inconvenient publication out of business. Telling in its own right they wanted it that way. It's pretty clear what Mr. Simon was concerned about.).

Baronius, you could make yourself useful for a change and tell us if Mr. Simon's amendment was adopted.

 

Without delving into the Baronius/Ragusa tempest I'm curious as to how different this is from what the FCC does here in the states. As a reminder the FCC sets the rules for things broadcast over the air, not via cable/internet/satellite etc (of which there are no rules as people have to pay for those services and therefore can get whatever they want). On broadcast television there isn't any nudity or swearing and more adult themed television shows are broadcast after 10pm. The same is true for terristial radio, last time I listened they bleep out all of the swear words.

Have we given the FCC the power to overrule the first amendment all for the sake of the children? I've never thought of this before, but I find it an interesting situation.

 

I can't reasonably answer that question.

I don't think Ragusa believes that, Baronius. He just worded that a bit in shorthand for brevity. I don't mean to speak for Ragusa. What you are saying, Baronius, I completely agree with in principle and all things being equal. An elected government enforcing the will of the majority is a good thing in principle. I have spent most of my time in the minority in my country, and IMO, there are two things to consider:

1. The majority is sometimes wrong, like really wrong. I live in the epicenter of George W. Bush Country and was constantly assailed in my belief that the Iraq War was largely a hoax, especially in the early days of the war. I wish I had a dollar for everyone who "knew" and told me glowingly, "Just you wait to see what they find there. You'll see" Of course, meaning WMDs, terrorist links, so on. Well, that big majority turned out to have no idea what they were saying and the minority was right. Which is point #2.

2. Large majorities of peple are often manipulated. This is what I meant by "all things being equal." It is important that many points of view are represented fairly by the media. You can't really have a democracy without free access to the media, or the press, as it was known as in the days that Thomas Jefferson made that well-known observation. Also, James Madison strongly believed that competeing forces in government actually make governemnt better, not worse. Public access is crucial to have a worthwhile oppositition to keep the ruling party from going too far over the line.

Just some things to consider that go along with majority rule. While I'm sure you are aware of these points, they need to be reaffirmed when speaking of the benefits of the majority rule that you point out.

 

For comparing FCC with the "partisan body":

So the majority (3 from 5) can still be from the same party! This is completely fine in a country with long-estabilished democratic traditions (where the democratic thinking is deeply embedded in the mentality of almost everyone). In Hungary, more radical changes are needed, and if e.g. socialist members (who proved to be totally incompetent and cheaters) were allowed to interfere (e.g. in committees or media authorities), it would reduce efficiency and even could prevent decisions. The Hungarian nation democratically elected a new government, saying "No!" to post-communist socialists. To those who like to know theoretical things more deeply, I can recommend my post about EFFECTIVENESS and EFFICIENCY (it is probably in the first or second page of this thread).

There was only apparent media freedom in Hungary. As you said in previous posts, the lobby of a certain elite has a really great influence. So the "free opposition", while having a theoretical possibility, was not present in the Hungarian media. Remember my post about Heti Hetes, which attacked always just the Orban party (even when Orban was in opposition), and the most popular TV channel just broadcasted Heti Hetes without a programme that shows opposite views.

My point is, just because the law is not too strict/broad, the freedom and balance of media can still be harmed. And IT WAS, in Hungary. Just the political parties (e.g. MSZP) informally influenced it, e.g. by agreeing with the media companies in certain things behind the scenes.

I pointed out several times that I don't unconditionally say that majority must be taken into account only. Nonetheless, constantly accusing the -- democratically elected -- Orban government of dictatorship is ridiculous, because practically everyone in Hungary (and not just in Hungary, see my French quote from the professor of the University of Geneva) knows that Orban is not a dictator. It is common sense, and history.

Can be, but that is what WAS IN HUNGARY! A mostly invisible group of elites dictating a lot of things (not just the media). If I need to choose, then I choose a strong and self-confident -- but democratically working -- government than an informal group of lobby powers (where secret agreements are made between them and the political forces, government, etc.).

On a side note, it has a good chance that Orban's approach (including the bank taxes as well) will spread in the European Union in the upcoming years.

 

Snook,
as for differences between the NMHH and the FCC … for one, the new head of the NMHH is probably experienced in matters of indecency on account of having worked for a porn magazine. Few people at the FCC could lay claim to the same sort of expertise.

Baronius,
while with the FCC the majority (3 from 5) can still be from the same party, and that often is the case, in Hungary the number of candidates appointed by the majority currently means 9 out of 9, and the term of the head of the agency is nine years, not just five.

 

Ice T must be doing flips on his way to the bank. The sale of his music or at least the download of it is going to skyrocket. Ice T renaissance on its way in Hungary! Best exposure an artist who has been irrelevent for almost 20 years could have gotten!

 

You see, everyone gets good: the law gets enforced as it should, and the song gets a free promotion. Even Ice-T found it funny when he learnt about it, he laughed and said he loves it, the world is still afraid of him.

That is also a dirty lie that is spread internationally. That was rather an erotic magazine without hard sex or porn, and it was sold in a "cover" (closed pack) only to adults (so the main page and everything else is not visible without first buying and opening it). It rather reflects how children should be PROTECTED from such a material; something that the current media does not always do.

 

Baronius,
soft-core, hard-core - still porn. But I am sure her business ethics are impeccable ... and people have to pay their bills.

More pertinent to our debate is what she did politically. After Orban was unelected in 2002, she was a party whip in Fidecz street protests against the liberal-left administration of his successor Péter Medgyessy. She was rewarded for her, and I quote the Budapester Zeitung, "unyielding loyalty" with the appointment to the then council of Radio and TV, ORTT. The Budapester Zeitung also uses the phrase "servile fervour". It is very hard to not come to the conclusion that she is a stalwart party loyalist.

Clearly the person that can be trusted to exercise her new powers without any partisan considerations, for the next nine years. And it is not just her, Fisecz staffed the NMHH exclusively with Fidesz members (it is said, including the janitors).

Re: Tilos* - Aside of committing the crime of playing Ice-T Ice-T on September 2, 2010 at 17.53 (amazement: before that law was even enacted?) that radio station Tilos, a non-profit community radio station in Budapest, regularly organized various party events around town. The theme of Tilos Slam 2010 was “DiscrimiNATIONS”, with which Tilos proudly joined the anti-racist action week on the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination on March 21, 2010. You know, lefty stuff.

Curious enquiry: Did that aforementioned amendment find its way into the bill?

Spoiler

* Reportedly only 1.1 percent of Hungarian youth under 16 have passed a basic level English exam (obviously the fault of the previous administration) and only 4 percent of the listeners of Tilos Radio are younger than 16. The chance that the development of Hungarian youth might be disturbed by Tilos' broadcast of Ice-T's lyrics appears to be primarily theoretical.

And it isn't as if Hungarians need Ice-T as an inspiration for foul language. Hungarians tell me (with some pride) that probably no other language contains so many expletives as Hungarian.

 

Ragusa, Ragusa, he just became too obsessed, so I can only laugh on his words. He just repeats the miserable speculations he reads in the press about Orban and in the people Orban finds reliable. E.g. it is possible to find flaws in the past of everyone, but what matters is how the person in question will do his or her professional work. But rather Ragusa, considering how clever he is, should give answers to the public regarding the following questions:

1. How come that the most influential international groups in HU media (such as RTL, ProSiebenSat1, Springer, WAZ group) did not protest loudly yet?
2. How come the European Union hasn't made any official statement regarding the "dictature" and media law of Hungary?

All we can see is miserable hysteria from some governments and obviously from the press...

 

What about that amendment?

 

A law must be enforced. Otherwise, the law will not be respected. (A law of such type does not make much sense without its POWER -- its ABILITY -- to frighten away those who may violate it in the future. Everyone knows this.) Moreover, a law must be enforced regardless of the practical consequences. Even children are taught: there are rules that must be followed. Explaining how and why in a concrete case the enforcement was not needed is just nonsense.

 

In an startling twist, I read the NMHH quoted a US Supreme Court precedent from 1978 - Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation - in their decision. Someone should have told them that a Second Circuit court effectively argued in 2008 that the Pacifica Decision was outdated. The FCC appealed and lost - a Federal Appeals Court ruled in July 2010 that FCC's expletives policy is unconstitutional.

I found a translation of the NMHH's letter to Tilos:

Someone define 'vague' and 'potential'.

Also interesting is that apparently they threatened to fine the station with an amount higher than their annual budget. That's using a sledge-hammer to crack a nut.

PS: The EU didn't make any noises because they don't want to waste the next three months with a moping EU president. The EU parliament fractions -liberals, socialist and conservatives alike - have voiced concern.
PPS: RTL, ProSiebenSat1, Springer, WAZ didn't protest aloud because as non opposition media they are probably not threatened.
PPPS: Somebody else tell you how silly exactly that bit about enforcement is.

 

I have read quite a bit of this thread, and it has become rather mind numbing. I can see both Ragusa's point and Baronius' as well.

My feelings on Baronius' posts are these: No matter what you do, SOMEBODY is going to criticize it. I've made that point about the US many times in the past. The best thing you can do is carefully weigh the situation and then make a decision that YOU feel you can live with. Baronius feels that despite criticism, that is what the Hungarian people, acting through their duly elected representatives, have done with this law. Others in the international community may disagree, and I can totally go along with his taking offense to having his government (which he sees as being a legitimate democratic one) being characterized as a totalitarian one. When hyperbole is used in a cavalier way, it can be damned offensive.

At the same time, Ragusa's point seems to be (oh, and I just KNOW he's gonna be pissed at me for saying it this way!) "if it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, and poops like a duck, it's probably a f*****g duck!" No amount of contextualization can convince Ragusa that this law isn't trouble waiting to happen. Despite the fact that institutions and cultures may vary, people (and politicians!) are pretty much the same the world over. There are some universal situations in life, and to Rags this is one of them.

Neither is horridly wrong.

 

LKD: you have some good points there. So I really don't know why Ragusa thinks it makes sense that he "collects" things about Hungary and argues endlessly here...

Ragusa, hey, doesn't he spend a bit much time with Hungary law? Obsessed maybe? While carefully hijacking discussion to avoid to react fundamental issues:

EDIT: now I noticed, he later edited his post. Well, RTL, ProSiebenSat1, Springer, WAZ exactly have many channels in Hungary, so they ARE one of those that are GREATLY AFFECTED by the new law...