Media Trends and Concentration of Capital in two Balkan Countries: Greece And Bulgaria

Lilia Raycheva, PhD
Associate Professor
Radio and TV Department – Faculty of Journalism and Mass Communication
The St. Kliment Okhridski Sofia University

Nikos Leandros, PhD
Associate Professor
Department of Communication, Media and Culture
Panteion University of Social and Political Sciences

Abstract

The main objective of this paper is to compare and contrast developments affecting the media sector in two Balkan countries: Bulgaria and Greece.

Since the late 1980s the Greek media system has been transformed by the entry of big industrial and merchant capital into the media scene and the “savage deregulation” of broadcasting. As a result a major problem of cross-ownership and media concentration has emerged.

During the same period the process of decentralization, liberalization and privatization in Bulgaria led to a completely new media landscape. Media competition stimulated the first dynamic open markets in the country, which established well-developed media consumption patterns. Foreign media groups, including Greek ones offensively took over the unstructured and insecure media market. Concentration trends are spreading rapidly throughout the media sector.

Regulatory responses to the problems of media concentration and cross-ownership are contradictory and ineffective in both Balkan countries. In the proposed paper the structural media developments will be analyzed from various aspects: political, legal, regulatory, economic, social and professional.

__________________________

Lilia Raycheva is Associate Professor at the Faculty of Journalism and Mass Communication of the St. Kliment Ohridski University of Sofia. She is the author of 8 books, the editor of 4 books and of numerous scientific publications. She has served as a member of the Council for Electronic Media – the regulatory broadcasting authority in Bulgaria and as such – as a member of the Standing Committee on Transfrontier Television at the Council of Europe. Her scientific interests include ICT’ impacts; communication issues; media developments; regulatory practices; media professional standards.

Nikos Leandros is Associate Professor of Media Economics at Panteion University of Social and Political Sciences. He has published extensively in academic journals, conference volumes and is the author of a number of books and monographs. He has worked as Lecturer at Salford University, at the Economic Research Division of the Bank of Greece and has been Director of the Research and Documentation Observatory of the National Book Center. His current research interests include the ‘New Media’, ‘newspaper business models’, “corporate strategies”, “cultural industries”, ‘media concentration”.

BULGARIA*

Shaping the media landscape

To understand the profound transformation in the mass media system and its development trends in Bulgaria, one should go back to the roots of political upheaval after the falling of the Berlin wall. Following the profound changes throughout all Eastern European countries, the tendency to democracy became irreversible. among the major political achievements during that transformation period of nearly 20 years were the stabilization of political life in the country, joining of NATO in 2004, and accession to EU in 2007.

Prior to the political changes in 1989, the Bulgarian mass media system was centralized, state-owned and subordinated to the priorities of the Party-State system. The processes of decentralization, liberalization and privatization began spontaneously with no sharing of common perspectives. Along with the overall economic and political crisis of the time, the transformation of the mass media system developed on practical, trial-and-error efforts, rather than on a legal basis. The mass media, among all the institutions in the country, helped the transformation to democracy the fastest and in the most profound way. However, journalists, just as politicians, were not ready to adequately undertake their new roles. Thus, the emerging principles and styles of journalism were created ad hoc. The media found themselves fulfilling the dual function of transmitters of protest and accelerators for political change.

The Press

The Bulgarian press dates back to 1844 when the country was still under Ottoman domination. After the establishment of the Eastern Bloc in the late 1940s and for good forty years afterwards the press was monotonous, propagandistic and totally controlled by the Communist Party. The lack of information and manipulation of the news along with the absence of an alternative press resulted in newspapers and magazines of marginal value.

In the ensuing chaos right after the shift of political power in November 1989, the press was the first to gain total deregulation and initiated the beginnings of a free market. By the early 1990s, State ownership of newspapers and magazines was abandoned. Restructuring the print media brought to life several types of periodicals.

Political pluralism fostered the emergence of a multi-party press to replace the single party press under Communism. The politically affiliated press seemed to outnumber the others in number of titles, but not in circulation. The first opposition daily newspaper – Svoboden Narod (Free People) of the social democrats was followed by Demokratzia (Democracy) of the Union of democratic Forces. In the meantime, Rabotnichesko delo (Workers’ Deed ) – the Party organ of the Bulgarian Socialist Party (the successor of the communists) changed its title into Douma (Word). Very soon, the political, economic and ideological heralds of the various political parties engaged in a newspaper war with no regard for the interests of the public welfare. Thus, the process resulted in a steady shrinking of the partisan newspapers readership.

The early 1990s heralded the age of deregulation of the print media leading to a tremendous change in the entire industry. In the process of forming an independent, diversified and pluralistic press in Bulgaria the tight ideological control over the mass media switched to economic motives. Some factors such as the soaring prices of newsprint, printing services and distribution expenses sped up the process of catering to audience expectations and needs rather than narrow political interests. In this situation, it was quite natural for advertising to prosper and the profits from it became the main economic resource for print media. A new press emerged which declared itself politically independent. These periodicals quickly gained the largest audience share and took over the expanding volume of advertising. Under the auspices of privatization and commercialization, aggressive press corporations, such as the German Westdeutsche Algemeine Zeitung group, established control over the dailies with the highest circulation – Trud and 24 Chassa.

A third group of publications found an audience niche by catering to specific interests. The most popular topics included leisure, health promotion, cultural events, lifestyles, sports, fashion, hobbies, games, eroticism and soft porn, crime, etc. The absence of any mass media regulations led to a boom in pornographic publications, virtually unheard of before 1989. They found their way to almost every newsstand. Attempts to impose some distribution restrictions failed. Irrespective of the economic difficulties, all ethnic minorities (Turks, Romas, Russians, Armenians, Jews and Wallachians) issued their own periodicals, mostly weeklies or monthlies. Some of them were bilingual (i.e., in Bulgarian in addition to the minority language). The decentralizing trend in the press market helped energize the local press. The new publications survived the economic recession and some titles demonstrated stable growth. They enjoyed the confidence and support of their audiences mainly because they dealt pragmatically with current local issues.

Realising gradually the influence of the mass media, especially in pre-election times, the political powers and economic groupings began pouring money into the mass media. The struggle for survival in the developing competitive media market, alas, did not commence in the domain of professional standards and the mission of journalism to protect the public interest.

Data provided by the National Statistical Institute vividly show the trends in the development of the printed media within the two decades of the transition period. Thus 301 newspapers (17 dailies) with an annual circulation of 895 265 000 were issued in 1989, as compared to 448 newspapers (64 dailies) with an annual circulation of 338 590 000 twenty years later, in 2009. The corresponding figures for magazines and bulletins were 827, with annual circulation of 57 849 000 in 1989 vs. 817 with annual circulation of 17 944 000 in 2009 (NSI, 2009). There has been a significant trend for preserving and even increasing diversification of supply, while at the same time considerably reducing circulation.

The Traditional Electronic Media

In contrast to the turbulent, wrenching transformations in the print media, the changes in the electronic media were slower, incomplete and lacked general consistency. The once rigorous regulations at the state level framed the initiatives for decentralization and privatization. However, for a long time the state-owned electronic media remained closely controlled since they were funded from the State budget. A restrictive legislature was another factor in their slow transformation. It aborted any early attempts at a substantial and relevant change. Until 1997 the executive boards of the state-owned electronic media were open to direct political pressure causing overall personnel instability and lack of continuity in programming policy. Continuing turnover among executives caused by aggressive political pressures on the management of both National Television and National Radio led to their general instability. Nevertheless, BNT is approved by 69,5% of the population and BNR by 64,9%. (NCPO, 2009).

The new Bulgarian Constitution adopted on July 12, 1991 was the first legislative act that abolished the party-state monopoly in the electronic media. Thus, along with the other East European countries, Bulgaria moved to regulate the licensing of private radio and TV stations. The Parliamentary Commission for Radio and Television and the Provisional Council for Radio and Television (established at the beginning of 1992) became the controlling bodies of radio and television structure and functioning. They worked under the conditions of deregulation and absence of legislative rights (after several unsuccessful attempts the first law on radio and television in Bulgaria came into being only=== in 1989). The liberalized rules for licensing of local radio and television stations (Ordinance…, 1992) stimulated a rapid development of private radio. The first commercial radio stations began operation on a local level in 1992. The advent of private television occurred two years later.

For nearly 18 years a highly saturated radio and TV landscape has been formed in the country. Bulgarian radio and television stations now operate on two economic levels: state owned and private. At present, a total of 453 program services (324 radio and 129 TV) are being created on the territory of the country (CEM, 2009). Presently, the two national institutions that regulate the electronic media are the Council for Electronic Media (CEM) and the Communications Regulation Commission (CRC). They issue radio and TV licenses and register cable and satellite broadcasters. CEM (formerly The National Council for Radio and Television) is the regulatory body that monitors compliance with the Radio and Television Act, including issues such as advertising, sponsorship, copyright, and protection of minors. The Council also considers complaints by citizens and organizations. CRC (formerly The State Commission of Telecommunications) manages the radio spectrum. It also enforces the Electronic Communications Act, adopted in 2007, which has laid down the legal basis for the digital switchover.

Although the public was offered a highly varied media menu, expectations that the media would aid the processes of democratization in a purposeful and effective manner have proved unrealistically high. Change of property and departure from single-party control were insufficient for rendering them professional. Public interest was replaced by what was interesting to the public. Although the guild has adopted its ethical code in 2004 (Ethical Code, 2004), it failed to build the mechanisms for sustaining it and in many cases still reacts inadequately to important and publicly significant issues, as well as to a number of professional problems.

Although the advertising market is still not very big, the radio and TV environment is oversaturated. Lack of clarity about the media ownership obscures the fact how dependent the electronic media can be on the political and business interests and impacts on the media policies. The weak market, which fails to maintain the numerous licensed radio stations, has left a loophole for companies with capitals of doubtful origin. A further obstacle for the development of radio and TV environment in the country has been the halting of the licensing process, owing to the formal requirement that the two regulating authorities would work out a Strategy for development of radio and television activities by terrestrial radio broadcasting. The Strategy was developed on time, but the Parliament adopted it only four years later as a condition for the pre-accession process to the European Union. Similarly, by the present moment, the legal, technological, regulatory and social framework for transition from analogue to digital broadcasting of aerial television is rather contradictory and serves the corporative interests.

The Radio

Radio broadcasting in Bulgaria was a State monopoly right from the very beginning of its existence in 1932. Until 1991 there was only one, Sofia-based, central broadcasting station (operating four channels) and five regional stations (later they amounted to 7). The liberalization of radio broadcasting was a much slower process than that of the print media. The terrestrial monopoly of the Bulgarian National Radio was disrupted only in 1992. The first licenses for private radio stations were issued to several foreign radio broadcasting companies: The Voice of America, BBC–World Service, Free Europe, France International, and Deutsche Welle. They were selected because of their sensitivity to the democratization process in Bulgaria. The first domestic private radio station, FM+, went on the air in October 1992. Currently two national radio stations are broadcasting: BNR – the public service broadcaster and the commercial Darrik radio.

Private radio broadcasting developed explosively in Bulgaria. Making use of the legal vacuum, some of the first license-owners for radio stations applied and obtained such licenses for other towns too. Thus legally imprecise radio-chains and, subsequently, radio networks swarmed up, distributing similar programme, musical and advertising content in various settlements. From the very dawn of its existence the non-governmental radio in Bulgaria has started developing along the lines of property concentration which led to rather unified broadcasts of the local radio stations.

The major shift in radio ownership was followed by the introduction of new radio formats. The listeners relied on domestic private radio stations as alternative sources to state-owned Bulgaria National Radio, while before 1989 they sought reliable information from foreign sources. Contrary to initial expectations, strong competition between the private Bulgarian and foreign FM stations did not materialize.

By the present moment, the Horizont Programme of the Bulgarian National Radio tops the ratings of the audience with 35.3% and has a market share of 21.6% (BNR, 2009). Traditionally, the Bulgarian National Radio is among the firm leaders in terms of its credibility as an institution. The private radio stations still pose no real challenge to it.

The Television

Telecasts in Bulgaria first began in 1959 with three hours’ programming twice a week. It took about 10 years before the whole country was covered by TV signals. Color telecasting was introduced in 1972 and in 1975 a second national channel was launched. For years Soviet Television was retranslated and run on Fridays in place of the program of the First National Channel.

Compared to the other media, changes in television came much more slowly. Some major reasons for the slow changes included the state monopoly over national telecasting, political pressures resulting in frequent replacements of TV executives (in seventeen years, fourteen Directors General had headed in succession the National Television), lack of research and development concepts and strategies, inefficient management, economic constraints and obsolete equipment. The last Director General was actually the first who completed his term of office and was re-elected for another term.

By the end of 1994 there was virtually only one terrestrial television in Bulgaria: the Bulgarian National Television, with two programmes (Channel 1 and Efir 2) and four regional TV centres in Plovdiv, Varna, Ruse and Blagoevgrad. As a result of the ceaseless political purges from left and right, in a matter of several years the Bulgarian National Television was almost entirely stripped out of its most valuable resource – the adult and most productive generation of professionals – and marked a downslide in the professional standards of its Tv performance. For a long time the Bulgarian National Television held the monopoly in the advertising market and managed to accumulate a considerable financial resource on its own on top of the subsidies from the National Budget. This gave rise to various schemes for draining out money from the medium (Ginev, 2006).

The first private television station, Nova Televizia (New Television), broadcasting locally, was launched in 1994, followed by the local TV station 7 Days. Almost simultaneously with the emergence of these two televisions in the second half of the 1990s, a dozen projects for local terrestrial televisions had started out in the country. The location and scale of the towns covered by them manifested lack of any concept in the frequency planning and a purely subjective approach to issuance of local licenses for terrestrial distribution.

The emergence of new channels encouraged the program diversification in the national TV landscape. The almost uncontrolled reception of satellite, transborder and cable programs exerted additional pressure on the domestic channels. Infiltration of foreign audio-visual products had an equally strong impact on national broadcasting policies. In December 1999 Rupert Murdoch’s Balkan News Corporation was the successful bidder to become the first private TV broadcaster functioning on a national scale, but it was launched only in 2002 due to legislative complications. From the very beginning this media has earned a substantial market share and quickly imposed itself as a leader in the confrontation with the enfeebled BNT. The struggle for ratings and the utter commercialization, irrespective of the form of ownership, have led in principle to unification of BNT and bTV in terms of programming: too much TV time for quizzes and lucky-winner-games, endless soap operas, action series, and Americanized film productions. The second national terrestrial television, Nova Television, which was licensed in the middle of 2003, also failed to offer any novelty in principle in terms of programming. Consequently, although not on a very large scale, but certain redistribution of the advertising market set in. At the end of the 1990s the media practices set an eloquent example how the political and private interests in Bulgaria could insolently and publicly suspend the Radio and Television Act. We are speaking here of the private terrestrial Top TV which, irrespective of its license for local broadcasting, became a nation-wide TV operator owing to legal lapses and disputable regulation. Thus a third private national television emerged on the market in 2007, PRO.BG (recently renamed TV2).

During the discussion and adoption of the now obtaining Radio and Television Act the Bulgarian politicians quite consciously refused to abide by a key requirement of the European regulatory media practices and did not differentiate by their legal and functional status the operators into distributors and TV programme producers. This allowed for mixed and unfair competition in the market. The early 1990s also witnessed the illegal advent of the local cable networks in the big cities. As a rule, the companies which dared engage in such activities were connected to the shady business and built unprofessional cable systems: totally in the air, without regulations and technical standards for safety and quality. Initially, the only official license for cable TV systems-building in the big Bulgarian cities was issued to the Globo Company. Subsequently, most of these systems were sold to Cable Bulgaria. Directly or not, the cable operators began sponsoring the political powers with advertising and TV time, while the Government administration, albeit at a slow pace, began finding out various openings for licensing the illegally started operators at the end of the 1990s. During these first years, although imperceptibly for the broad public, a mark of meaningful concentration became the inset of local cable TV networks in the villages with predominantly Turkish population, which broadcast Turkish satellite programmes correlating directly with the ethnical peace in the country (Ginev, 2005).

The ultimate result for small Bulgaria was profanation of the TV space which became infested by scores of low-quality cable programmes. The low quality of these programmes, some of which are beamed via a satellite, is the main reason for their small market shares, which by no means could threaten the positions of the four nation-wide aerial operators.

The privately owned TV stations undoubtedly challenged the monopoly of the state-owned television. A varied TV market was gradually established in the country. Recently bTV has taken the lead in the audience share from BNT in a country where 98% of the households have a television set. According to June 2007 statistics, the national audience of bTV is 94.7%; the corresponding numbers for Nova TV are 85.1% and 81.6% for BNT – Channel 1 (Alpha Research, 2007). The same order is valid for the advertising revenues of the three broadcasters. The fact that the commercial TV operators enjoy 12 min of advertising per hour, while the public operator has only 15 min for advertising daily to bring funding into its budget voted by the National Assembly, has also contributed to that. The fees expected to be collected for the public radio and TV never materialized.

The process of concentration

The trend towards concentration resulted essentially from the process of media market build-up and structuring in Bulgaria in the two decades following the political changes in 1989. It is logical not only because it is in pace with the world market developments, but also because of the fact that the too great number of the media prevents them from a financially transparent existence. It is the media world in particular that throughout the years of transition has been and still is a rich turf for the black economy.

Strengthening of the market marked the start of its consolidation. Several major press groups were founded by professionals close to private banks, insurance companies, political and trade union establishments, thus starting the concentration process. The rigorously developing media market attracted foreign investors. In 1997, the German Westdeutsche Algemeine Zeitung (WAZ) bought the controlling package of the two leading newspaper groups in Bulgaria: 168 Chassa and Media Holding. WAZ combined the advertisement policies, publishing the same advertisements in all their dailies. This control of advertising and newspaper circulation violated the anti-monopolistic legislature. Two years later, in 1999, WAZ transferred part of its ownership to Swiss and Austrian companies to avoid prosecution under the law (Zaharieva, 1998). Thus the company Vestnikarska Grupa Bulgaria (VGB) – Newspaper Group Bulgaria was formed. Besides the 168 Chassa EOOD and Media Holding AD, it also includes in its package Media Magazines Publishers EOOD, Media Partner EOOD, Utro Press Group EOOD, Bulgarian Farmer OOd, and Trud Publishing House. VGB publishes the two newspapers with the largest circulation in the country: Trud and 24 Chasa, with local issues in Bulgaria’s six largest cities.

The inflow of foreign capital, on the one hand, helped the establishment of successful business models across the entire range of newspaper-making: from editing to advertising policy, through ownership of own printing facilities and to the distribution network. This model multiplied at local level, however, depersonalized the diversity in the smaller inhabited places.

National capital was too weak to create stable press groups, although the past years have witnessed several attempts along these lines. Interesting was the emergence of the New Bulgarian Media Group in 2008 as a projection of the economic intents for propaganda purposes in the media world. The establishment of this group in the market flagrantly illustrates the symbiosis of a business that has nothing to do with the media with the interests of the political party Movement for Rights and Freedoms that was part of the then ruling coalition. Consequently, two TV stations (TV7 and BBT) and six newspapers (Monitor, Telegraph, Politika, Meridian Match, Borba, Express) were acquired very fast. The New Bulgarian Media Group became the major owner of the newspapers publishing house.

Characteristic of the processes of concentration in Bulgaria was the inflow of foreign capital and players, especially after the country’s accession to the European union in 2007. They focused their interests mainly in the domain of the electronic media.

The concentration trend was felt the quickest in the field of the radio. The leading Irish commercial radio broadcaster Communicorp Group operates one of the largest independent radio groups in Central and Eastern Europe. Being the fastest growing radio network in Europe, it is connected with 42 radio stations across 8 countries. In Bulgaria Communicorp Group owns 7 radio chains: Radio NRJ, Radio Nova, BG Radio, Radio Veronica, Radio 1, Radio 1 Rock, Radio City. The ProSiebenSat.1 Group as one of the largest and most successful TV groups in Europe has acquired the SBS Broadcasting Group (which originally stood for Scandinavian Broadcasting System). It offers 26 TV channels, 24 subscription TV channels and 22 radiostations across 13 countries in Europe. In Bulgaria The ProSiebenSat.1 Group owns 4 radio chains: Radio Vitosha, Radio Atlantic, Radio Veselina, Radio The Voice. As a wholly owned subsidiary of Emmis Communications, the US Emmis International owns 3 radio chains: Radio FM+, Radio Fresh, Radio Star.

The interest of some foreign groups also spread out to the ownership of some TV operators.Thus, being the world’s largest media conglomerate by market capitalisation News Corporation (often abbreviated to News Corp) includes various television operations in Eastern Europe. In Bulgaria News Corporation owns 4 radio chains: Radio NJoy, Radio Melody, Radio Z Rock, Radio Jazz FM and 4 TV stations: bTV (the largest private terrestrial TV), Fox Crime, Fox Life, GTV. bTV was granted a license for digital terrestrial broadcasting on a national scale. The Bermuda-based Central European Media Enterprises (CME), managed by Ronald Lauder and specializing in broadcast operations in Central and Eastern Europe, is the owner of 1 radio chain: Radio Mila Gold and 2 TV stations: TV 2 (the third largest private terrestrial TV) and Ring TV. The largest free-TV and pay-TV operator in Scandinavia and the Baltics Modern Times Group MTG AB as an international entertainment broadcasting group with its core business in television owns in Bulgaria 5 TV stations: NOVA TV (the second largest private terrestrial TV, purchased from the Greek Antenna), Diema Vision (Diema, Diema 2, Diema Family), MM TV (ABBRO, 2009).

The inflow of foreign capital and serious international broadcasters reflected positively on the radio and TV market along lines of optimizing its production cycle. Along with that, there was a negative side to the process: the purchase of telecommunication licenses by powerful foreign players from the local owners has impoverished the broadcasting polyphony. Only 10% of all licensed radio and TV programs in the country are specialized. The rest are polythematic and aimed at an age-segmented but relatively mass audience. The specific interests and music preferences of the small audiences, though, were doomed to economic failure.

A characteristic feature of the Bulgarian media landscape throughout the transition period was the strong concentration bordering on monopolization of the radio and TV advertising. This economic mechanism constrains the free development of the media market and subjects it to political and corporative interests.

GREECE

“Savage deregulation” in broadcasting

Until the 1980s the print and electronic media followed different trajectories in terms of their economic development, ownership structure and role in the political and social life of the country. The former were in the hands of traditional publishers, while a state monopoly controlled broadcast media.

The main problem of the state electronic media had been the lack of impartiality in the news and other political broadcasts. Both radio and television “grew up” in non democratic periods of Greek history: radio in the Metaxas dictatorship and the German occupation, and television during the 1967-1974 dictatorship. Hence, these mass media operated as propaganda tools of the government, as has been the case in all dictatorships. The democratic governments which succeeded the dictatorships became victims of the temptation to follow similar tactics. Therefore, news coverage was often reminiscent of practices followed in autocratic regimes (Manthoulis, 1981; Mouzelis, 1980).

The extreme pro-government bias of state-owned and government-controlled radio and television led to social pressure for deregulation by a group of intellectuals called “channel 15”, named after the constitutional article. Public opinion’s favourable reaction to that pressure made some opposition mayors decide to start radio stations in 1987. In turn, that forced the government to accept the principal of non-state-owned local radio stations in law 1730/1987 and implemented it with a 1988 presidential decree (Pesmazoglou, 1993; Venizelos, 1989).

The state’s constitutionally mandated control over electronic media is carried out by the National Radio and Television Council (Ethniko Symvoulio Radiotileorasis -ESR). ESR’s responsibilities are, inter alia, to advise the government on granting licences to non-state-owned radio and television stations, to issue codes of ethics for journalists, programmes and advertisements in broadcast media, to oversee the coverage of the activities of parliament and of electoral campaigns by the public broadcaster (ERT) and to sanction the violation of these codes or of other laws by the stations (Karakostas, 1998).

The government was supposed to grant the appropriate licenses on the recommendation of the ESR, which, because of its dysfunctioning, took years to issue such recommendations and the government has yet to curry out its responsibility. Even today almost all non-state-owned radio and television stations lack the required contracts with the state, required to normalize their functioning, though many have been granted temporary licences (Oikonomou, 2004).

In this chaotic environment state-owned and municipal radio stations have exhibited a sharply declining trend in audience figures and advertising revenue. Nowadays, private stations dominate the radio sector. Nearly 900 radio stations broadcast regularly throughout Greece, the most important ones are located in Athens and have networking arrangements with local stations (National Radio and Television Council, 2009). Media conglomerates control many of the more successful radio stations (Ant1 Radio, Skai 100,3, Melodia, Red, Angel, Rythmos 94,9).

Private television stations were allowed in 1989 (Law 1866/1989) and very quickly transmitters sprang up across Greece. Apart from the national TV channels, regional and local stations were established all over the country, some of them very successful in their respective regions.  Media owners and entrepreneurs from other fields grabbed transmission frequencies and commenced broadcasting in a legal void as regards licensing and company conduct leading to frequent violations of advertising and copyright rules and labour legislation (Leandros, 2000; Papathanasopoulos, 1997). Keen competition, violations of rules of conduct and attempts to gain public attention almost in any way possible led to quality degradation of the offered program (with certain exceptions of course) and reduced rates of credibility of television (Papathanasopoulos, 2001).[1]

It can be argued that the restructuring of Greek broadcasting was strongly affected by the interdependence between media and political elites (Skamnakis, 2006; Zacharopoulos and Paraschos, 1993). This led to a “Greek paradox”. On the one hand, there were many legislative interventions and on the other, a complete disregard of the laws. Strong anti-concentration rules that have never been enforced were introduced in parallel with a ‘savage deregulation’ of broadcasting which diminished the role of the National Radio Television Council and in many cases left it completely powerless (Hallin and Mancini, 2004).

Gradually a two-tier system has developed on the one hand with few leading players that achieve substantial profits and absorb the lion’s share of advertising and on the other, a large number of small channels that compete for the same small population of viewers and a piece of advertising pie in an effort to achieve a fringe viability. According to the data provided by the National Radio and Television Council currently there are 135 private analogue TV stations with national, regional or local license (National Radio and Television Council, 2009). Despite the large number of outlets five private channels which belong to conglomerates with activities in many sectors of the economy dominate the scene (Mega, Ant1, Alpha, Star, Alter). Indeed the combined audience share of the five leading private channels has fluctuated between 76.1% and 68.5% during the period 2000-2008. At the same time all other private channels accounted for less than 16% (AGB, 2000-2008).

A major element in the Greek broadcasting scene used to be the decline in viewership for the public service broadcasting services. Few other public broadcasters in Europe suffered as badly from the introduction of private TV. The Greek public broadcaster saw a sharp decline in its ratings and advertising expenditure due to the advent of private television. ERT’s problems stem from the public broadcaster’s one time role as a mouthpiece of government propaganda. This led to the erosion of its credibility in the eyes of the Greek public and was in effect the entry ticket for private television and the total deregulation of the TV sector. In fact, ERT had to pay for the democratization and increased number of television channels since it was unprepared to meet competition from the private broadcasters (Zacharopoulos, 2003).

In the last few years, the public broadcaster has implemented a long overdue reorganization which is now starting to bare fruit, although there is still a long way to go. The combined audience share of its three channels (ET1, NET and ET3) increased from 10.3% in 2000-2001 to 17.2% in 2007-2008 (AGB, 2000-2008).

An important feature of the Greek broadcasting scene is that cable TV is virtually non existent. In addition, the development of analogue pay TV was very slow and fraught with difficulties to a large extent due to the saturation of television market. Pay-TV officially entered the Greek UHF frequencies on October 15, 1994, when the Greek authorities granted permission for the operation of Filmnet, the country’s first pay-TV channel, owned by Multichoice / Netmed NV Group.

Greek digital satellite television started in March 1998, when Multichoice / Netmed Hellas announced its intentions to operate its own digital platform, called Nova. Eventually, after some disputes with the government at the time, on May 20, 1999, the ESR awarded Multichoice / Netmed Hellas a license to broadcast. One and a half years after Nova’s launch, the private TV station Alpha TV announced its plans to enter the digital television market with its platform, Alpha Digital and started operations on October 29, 2001. The result was a battle between the two digital platforms for rights to broadcast football games and Greek premiere league games became one of the most expensive broadcasts in European television. However, after a year of intense competition, Alpha Digital, with only 35,000 subscribers, on September 9, 2002, announced the suspension of its operations due to its failure to meet its economic obligations (Leandros and Tsourvakas, 2005).

Digital terrestrial television seems to be the country’s next big move. The public broadcaster started three digital terrestrial channels (Prisma plus, Cine plus and Sport plus) within the first half of 2006. While there is no digital or analogue cable TV service in Greece, the reason to go for “terrestrial digital” is due to international developments and especially the EU, which has called on its member states to switch from analogue to digital by 2012, and to the fact that the main part of the population lives in the major cities of the country.

The print media

Political, economic and technological developments caused many shifts in the world of the Greek press during the last decades. The restoration of democracy in 1974 led to an understandable blossoming of the print media. Average daily circulation of Athens-based general interest newspapers (the national press) rose by 50% to exceed 900,000 copies in 1974-5. Political change (a socialist government between 1981 and 1989, for the first time since the end of the Second World War) led to more newspapers being published, an average of 16, and to a substantial boost in circulation which reached an average of nearly one million copies between 1984 and 1989 (Psychogios, 2004). Moreover, the 1980s saw a restructuring of ownership patterns with far reaching implications for the wider communications field.

Since the arrival of private television and radio and with the plethora of magazines, newspaper advertising and readership have come under pressure. According to the data of the Athens Daily Newspaper Publishers Association, in 1989 there were 22 morning and afternoon general interest dailies published in Athens with an average daily combined circulation of 1,101,158 copies. In 1999 there were 23 titles with an average daily combined circulation of 480,812 copies, while in 2008 there were 22 titles with a total circulation of only 351,670 copies. This means that the average circulation of the national press is today approximately 1/3 of what was 20 years ago (Athens Daily Newspaper Publishers Association, 2009).

When the publishers saw that the sales of their newspapers were declining rapidly, almost all newspapers started offering free gifts to their readers, ranging from books, cars and houses to music CDs and film DVDs. These offers did not have a permanent effect in holding the decline of circulation of national dailies but led to an increase in sales as regards their Sunday editions (Psychogios, 2004).

Paradoxically, while the circulation of general interest dailies which are published in Athens and have a national reach is falling, the same cannot be said for the number of titles. Though a number of established newspapers suspended or ceased publication over the last 20 years, new titles, or old ones under new ownership, seem to be springing up all the time. This is related to the political influence of the national press and the real or perceived advantages that control of a mass medium brings in a country with strong clientelistic relations (Hallin and Papathanasopoulos, 2002; Roniger and Gunes-Ayata, 1994).

Newspaper ownership brings the publishers considerable influence, name recognition and respect across the political spectrum. A number of businessmen from the shipping industry or other sectors which frequently dealt with the government (public contactors, arms dealers etc.) entered the field and quickly displaced the traditional publishers (Simmons and Leandros, 1993). In 1989, only one of the pre-1974 publishers was still in business: Lambrakis, the heir to the most powerful press group from the interwar period (with the dailies Ta Nea and To Vima, 24 magazines and a share in the leading private television station, Mega Channel) and still the country’s biggest in terms of turnover.

The Greek market also has a wealth of magazines titles, with more than 900 popular and special interest titles. While circulations of the general interest weekly magazines has declined, the special interest monthlies are gaining the upper hand. The TV listings market has expanded as well to reflect the increase in programming. At the same time the old weekly information oriented magazines have perished. Some years ago, this category represented the bulk of magazine sales. This is also related to the entry in recent years of the Sunday newspapers in to the magazine market, through supplements that could be considered magazines in their own right. Leading newspaper publishers have strengthened their position in the market for periodicals and control many of the more successful titles (Leandros, 2008).

Concentration of ownership

Whereas in other countries efforts were made and legislation was passed to discourage or forbid the concentration of media, in Greece the laws gave preference to the media companies in granting the licences for private radio and television stations. The result was the creation of a powerful oligopoly around five media conglomerates that control the television and the national newspaper sectors and extend their activities to many other fields of the economy.

Law 1866/1989 which abolished state monopoly on television broadcasting also stated that the licenses of private TV stations will be allocated in preference to companies with shareholders who have experience in the media, as well as local authorities. Δεδομένου ότι οι ΟΤΑ δεν έχουν ούτε τα απαιτούμενα κεφάλαια, ούτε την οργάνωση, ούτε την τεχνογνωσία για να δημιουργήσουν τηλεοπτικούς σταθμούς είναι προφανές ότι οι εκδότες είναι αυτοί που ευνοήθηκαν κυρίως από τις ρυθμίσεις του νόμου 1866/1989. Since local authorities do not have the necessary funds, or organization, nor the expertise to build channels is obvious that publishers are those who mainly benefited from the provisions of Law 1866/1989. Πολύ περισσότερο επειδή οι απαιτήσεις του νόμου περί των ποσοστών σύνθεσης του κεφαλαίου των εταιρειών ουδέποτε λήφθηκαν σοβαρά υπόψη. Especially since the requirements of the Law on synthesis rates of companies’ capital was never taken seriously. Η διαπλοκή έντυπων και οπτικοακουστικών Μέσων σε επίπεδο ιδιοκτησίας αποτελεί, βέβαια, σημαντικό στοιχείο των διεθνών εξελίξεων. Όμως πουθενά δεν παρατηρείται το φαινόμενο της θεσμικής του επικύρωσης και ενίσχυσης όπως συμβαίνει στην Ελλάδα. Υπ’ αυτές τις συνθήκες η αναδιάρθρωση των σχέσεων ιδιοκτησίας που είχε ήδη ξεκινήσει από τις αρχές της δεκαετίας του 1980 επιταχύνθηκε και οδήγησε στη δημιουργία μιας μικρής ομάδας ομίλων Μέσων που ασκούν ολιγοπωλιακό έλεγχο στους κρίσιμους τομείς της τηλεόρασης και των πολιτικών εφημερίδων εθνικής κυκλοφορίας.

Under these conditions, the restructuring of property relations that had already started from the beginning of the 1980s accelerated, resulting in the creation of a powerful oligopoly around a small number of media corporations that own national dailies, radio and TV stations, a number of periodicals and extend their activities to the new media, telecommunications and culture. Ειδικότερα, μπορούμε να μιλήσουμε για δύο σαφώς διακριτές φάσεις αναδιάρθρωσης των σχέσεων ιδιοκτησίας. Η πρώτη φάση συνδέεται με την εισαγωγή της φωτοσύνθεσης στις εθνικές εφημερίδες, την αναδιάρθρωση των εργασιακών και παραγωγικών σχέσεων που ακολούθησε και την υπαγωγή πολλών εφημερίδων σε ευρύτερες οικονομικές αυτοκρατορίες. In particular, we can identify two clearly distinct phases of restructuring of ownership relations. The first phase is linked to the substitution of “hot-metal” by “cold-type” composition which transformed radically ownership patterns, industrial structure and the conduct of capital and labour relations.

Until 1981 the proprietors of even the largest publishing firms were persons who had emerged from the ranks of the industry, and their business activities were limited to newspaper and periodical printing and publishing. This changed after that year as big industrial and merchant capital generated from outside printing and publishing entered this sensitive arena of the economy for the first time. This had far-reaching effects for the industry and, given the political role of the press, for socio-cultural life in general. In some cases, the proprietors of older and well-established newspapers such as Akropolis, Kathimerini. Mesimvrini and Vradini faced serious economic difficulties and were forced to sell up, while, in other instances, including Eleftheros Typos, Epikerotita, Ethnos and Proti new titles were launched by entrepreneurs with much wider activities than the press (Simmons and Leandros, 1993).

The political power and prestige that accompanies the possession of a political daily is certainly a strong influence behind the decision to acquire a newspaper, although this is scarcely something which is admitted publicly. However, the new opportunities opening up for capital in mass-media and the information sector in general, must also be considered as a basic factor that prompted the entry of big merchant and industrial capital in the publishing industry after 1981. Indeed the business groups that spearheaded the development of many of the leading private television and radio stations were formed in the early 1980s.

Η δεύτερη φάση ξεκίνησε στα τέλη της  δεκαετίας του 1980 με την κατάργηση του κρατικού μονοπωλίου στον οπτικοακουστικό χώρο. The second phase began with the abolition of state monopoly in radio and two years later in television. It is cΧαρακτηρίζεται από τη ραγδαία επέκταση και διαφοροποίηση δραστηριοτήτων των επιχειρήσεων στο ευρύτερο φάσμα των έντυπων και οπτικοακουστικών Μέσων, στο διαδίκτυο, σε τομείς των υπηρεσιών, της ψυχαγωγίας και του πολιτισμού.haracterized by the expansion and diversification of Η ενίσχυση του οικονομικού και  πολιτικού ρόλου των κορυφαίων ομίλων Μέσων είναι ένα γεγονός που επηρέασε όσο λίγα την πολιτική ζωή του τόπου τις τελευταίες δεκαετίες. Media corporations into broadcasting, new media, book publishing, music and other sectors of the economy. The “savage deregulation” of broadcasting led to a major problem of cross-ownership and media concentration. Today, despite a large number of media outlets, few leading players dominate the scene and account for about 70% of the television and national newspaper market.

In 2008, according to the data provided by the Athens Daily Newspaper Publishers Association, the 4 leading publishing companies (Lambrakis Press S.A., Kathimerini Publishing S.A., Ch. K. Tegopoulos Editions S.A. and Pegasus Publishing S.A.) accounted for 69.7% of daily circulation in the case of national dailies (5 out of 22 titles) and 73.5% in the case of Sunday editions (5 out of 23 titles). The share of the market of the four leading national newspaper publishers increased from 59% in 1990 to 69.7% in 2008 basically due to the increase of the market share of Lambrakis Press and Kathimerini Publishing (Athens Daily Newspaper Publishers Association, 2009).

Lambrakis Press S.A. publishes Ta Nea and To Vima (their combined share of the market was 29.6% in 2008), two more newspapers and 24 magazines. The company is also engaged in the business sectors of printing, tourism, digital economy (portals and e-commerce shops), book publishing and reselling, press distribution and marketing. Kathimerini Publishing S.A. publishes Kathimerini (15% of the market in 2008), books and a range of magazines. The company operates internet information portal and is engaged in the exploitation of printing houses and presses. Ch. K. Tegopoulos Editions S.A. publishes and prints Eleftherotypia (13.2% of the market in 2008), its Sunday edition as well as magazines covering general and specialized interests that are distributed with the newspapers. The company also has strategic participations in companies of such sectors as free-to-air television, book publishing and call centers. Finally, Pegasus Publishing S.A. publishes Ethnos (11.9% of the market in 2008), five more newspapers and 14 magazines. Apart from the field of publishing the company is activated via its subsidiary companies in the fields of printing, digital economy, audiotext services, bookbinding, press distribution, television, musical events and TV productions.

The proprietors of the four leading publishing companies have important interests in the electronic media and three of them (Chr. Lambrakis, Chr. Tegopoulos and G. Bobolas the main shareholder in Pegasus Publishing) cooperated in 1989 and created Mega channel which have consistently occupied one of the first two places in terms of audience share since then. The Bobolas family also controls a group of manufacturing and construction companies. The Alafouzos family which owns Kathimerini also controls Skai channel which started broadcasting on April 1, 2006 as well as four radio stations and a number of shipping and construction companies.

In television the combined share of the five leading private channels (Mega, Ant1, Alpha, Star, Alter) was 68.5% in 2007-2008. Apart from Alpha TV which was acquired recently by RTL there is no significant inflow of foreign capital in the media sector. This is a feature that differentiates Greece from Bulgaria and the other transition countries. The existence of strong publishing companies which diversified their activities after deregulation and entrepreneurs from other fields who were eager to invest heavily in broadcasting meant that for foreign capital was not as easy or profitable as in the case of Eastern Europe to enter the Greek media scene.

For instance, the Vardinoyannis brothers obtained Mesimvrini newspaper in 1982 and created Star channel in 1993. They are among the most important ship owners and industrialists of Greece and control a group of companies that includes, inter alia, an oil refinery, a huge fleet of tankers and cargo vessels and Panathinaikos football club.

Antenna Group started with a radio station in 1988 and gradually diversified into other fields. Ant1 television, the Group’s corporate and communicative flagship, was founded in 1989 followed by pay TV and satellite channels that broadcast to Greeks living abroad. In addition, Ant1, recently launched the music TV channel BLUE for Greek audiences in the USA. Along with the electronic media, the Group has also secured a highly successful presence in the printed media through its publishing house Daphne Communications SA and the printing company Niki Publishing. In the music field, the record company Heaven Music has been an important member of the Antenna Group since 2001. It holds the first place among Greek independent record companies. As part or is international expansion Antenna Group until recently controlled Nova Television on Bulgaria.

Law 1866/1989 which allowed the operation of private TV stations attempted to limit the concentration of media ownership. No physical or legal person could hold more than 25% of the shares in only one company that owned a television station (article 4, paragraph 1). This extended to relatives of that person, up to the 4th degree of kinship. Moreover, participation in more than two different categories of media was prohibited. In reality the strict anti-concentration rules of law 1866/1989 were never enforced and the same is true with respect to subsequent legal efforts.

A constitutional amendment passed in 2001 (Article 14, paragraph 9) introduced new transparency and anti-concentration rules, which bar those active in the press and electronic media from participating in other economic activities that bring them in contact with the state. The prohibition also covered relatives, dependants or intervening companies. Since then and until recently the incompatibility between the ownership of media companies and state contracts was at the center of a judicial and institutional debate in Greece and a hot political issue (Alivizatos: 2004).

However, law 3310/2005 which introduced strict limitations to media ownership was frozen under European Union pressure. According to the system introduced by the law 3310/2005 (that purports to implement art. 14 paragraph 9 of the Greek Constitution of 2001), no owner, “main shareholder”, member of the board or officeholder of any media company could have these same capacities in any company which enters into agreements with public-sector entities. A tight prohibition covers any agreements of public-sector entities with media companies or owners, “main shareholders” were deemed those who are among ten largest shareholders or who hold the largest voting blocks, or possess more than one percent of the capital.

Any use of offshore companies was prohibited, while their shares had to be nominative/registered – and in case of participations through corporate entities, the shares of such companies had to be nominative, too. Moreover, all companies who have business dealings with public-sector entities had to comply with similar mandatory requirements, with partial wavers for foreign companies and mutual funds, banks etc.

Following a letter of formal notice sent to Greece on 23 March 2005 and the reply from the Greek national authorities received on 7 April, the European Commission decided to formally request Greece to change law 3310/2005. The Commission rejected the Greek government’s argument that the media could use their power in order to wield influence over the procedures of public procurement, which, according to the Commission, are to be conducted in a way that is not politically tainted. The Commission pointed out that law 3310/2005 breached the Community directives on public procurement and the principal of equal treatment of the participants, as well as the exercise of almost all the fundamental freedoms acknowledged by the EC Treaty.

The European Commission decided to take legal action against Greece before the European Court of Justice and the Greek government was finally forced to accept all the observations of the European Commission regarding the enforcement of three consecutive laws (3021/2002, 3310/2005 and 3414/2005) related to this subject. In view of these developments, the European Commission on 17 October 2007 announced the withdrawal of the infringement procedure concerning this issue against Greece before the European Court of Justice.

The change of policy became even more apparent by a new law on “Concentration and licensing of media enterprises” which was voted by the Greek Parliament in July 2007. Law 3592/2007 permits cross-media control and/or ownership in Greece. The law has introduced principals of “concentration control” and “dominant position” as combined weighing factors in issues related to media companies operation.

A concentration control of media enterprises is only prohibited when holding a dominant position is ascertained in one or more undertakings participating in such a concentration, or if a dominant position is acquired due to such a concentration. An existing dominant position (before concentration) is allowed, but must not be abused, as provided in Law 3592. In the case of a company or an entrepreneur who operates in one media market (television, radio, newspapers or periodicals) a share in excess of 35% constitutes a dominant position and the relevant figure is lower if there are activities in two or more media markets (article 3, paragraph 3).

Conclusion

Media pluralism is usually linked to the democratic performances of society. However, a greater number of media outlets does not necessarily mean that diversity of contents has been achieved.

In Bulgaria, the inflow of foreign capital and serious international broadcasters reflected positively on the radio and TV market along lines of optimizing its production cycle. Along with that, there was a negative side to the process: the purchase of telecommunication licenses by powerful foreign players from the local owners has impoverished the broadcasting polyphony. Only 10% of all licensed radio programs in the country are specialized. The rest are polythematic and aimed at an age-segmented but relatively mass audience. The specific interests and music preferences of the small audiences, though, were doomed to economic failure.

In Greece, there is no significant inflow of foreign capital. Indigenous companies invested heavily in electronic media immediately after the abolition of state monopoly and in some cases even managed to expand abroad. A plethora of media outlets has been created but a small number of media conglomerates dominate especially in national newspapers and television. The dominance of clientelistic relations in the Greek political system underpinned the process of concentration through the ineffective and contradictory nature of government intervention in broadcasting.

Media pluralism can be assessed through the number and type of media outlets, number and structure of their owners, editorial content, and access of different societal groups to media channels. The pronounced trend for media concentration has had a negative impact on the quality of information and diversity of opinions, and has curbed the opportunities of certain minority groups (ethnic, religious, cultural, linguistic, etc.) for a broad public outreach through the media. Polyphony has gradually transformed into tabloid monotony and gives priority rather to information that is interesting to the public than to information of public interest. This gives rise to the question whether a consolidated media market (especially on a local level) could be held accountable and dependable when serving the public interest, especially in times of crisis and emergency. Gradually, the ultimate results of such media market consolidation may lead to a poorly-informed public, restricted to reduced options of media array, which offer mainly information that supports the interests of the media owners.

The paper has been presented at: BEYOND EAST AND WEST: TWO DECADES OF MEDIA TRANSFORMATION AFTER THE FALL OF COMMUNISM – An International Conference, organized by the Center for Media and Communication Studies (CMCS) at Central European University (CEU) and
the COST A30 Action: “East of West: Setting a New Central and Eastern European Media Research Agenda”, in cooperation with the International Communication Association (ICA). 25-27 June 2009; Central European University, Budapest

References:

Association of Bulgarian Broadcasters: Members. (2009). Retrieved August 10, 2009 from http://www.abbro-bg.org/en/members.php

Athens Daily Newspaper Publishers Association (2009). Newspaper circulation. Retrieved September 5, 2009 from http://www.eihea.gr/default_gr.htm

AGB (2000-2008). TV Yearbook.

Alivizatos, N. (2004). ‘Constitution and «Interconnection»’, DIMEE 1 (1), pp. 16-30 (in Greek).

Alpha Research (2007) TV Channels Rate: June 2007. Retrieved August 10, 2007 from http://www.aresearch.org/major_tv_channels.html).

Bulgarian National Radio: August’09 Radio Audiences. Retrieved August 10, 2009 from http://www.bnr.bg/AboutBNR/dep_Analysis_Strategy/default.htm

Council for Electronic Media: Public Register (2009). Retrieved August 10, 2009 from http://www.cem.bg/public_reg.php?action=3

Ethical Code of Bulgarian Media (2004). Retrieved August 10, 2009 from http://btv.bg/news/?magic=et_code_en

Ginev R. (2006). The Modern Panopticum. Varna: The Chernorizec Hrabar Varna Free University Publishing House

Ginev R. Television Landscape of the Period of Transition: Realities and Vectors for Restructuring (2005), Annual of the ST Kliment Ohridski University of Sofia, Faculty of Journalism and Mass Communication, vol. 11, p. 243.

Hallin, D. and P. Mancini (2004). Comparing Media Systems. London: Cambridge University Press.

Hallin, D.and S. Papathanasopoulos (2002). “Political Clientelism and the Media: Southern Europe and Latin America in Comparative Perspective.” Media Culture and Society, 24(2), pp. 175-195.

Leandros, N. (2000). The Political Economy of Media. Industry Restructuring in the Era of Information Technology Revolution. Athens : Kastaniotis (in Greek).

Leandros, N. (2008). Corporate Strategies in the Media Sector. Athens: Kastaniotis (in Greek).

Leandros, N. and G. Tsourvakas (2005). “Intensive Competition and Company Failures in Subscription Television: Some European Experiences”, The International Journal on Media Management, 7(1&2), pp. 24-38.

Karakostas, I. (1998). Mass Media Law. Athens: Sakoulas (in Greek).

Media and Advertisement Magazine. Sofia: Market Test Supplement.

Manthoulis, R. (1981). The State of Television. Athens: Themelio (in Greek).

Mouzelis, N. (1980). “Capitalism and the Development of the Greek State” in  R. Scase, (ed). The State in Western Europe. London: Croom Helm.

National Centre for Public Opinion (2009). Retrieved August 10, 2009 from http://www.parliament.bg/?page=ns&lng=bg&nsid=9&aid=15

National Statistical Institute (2009). Publishing Activity. Retrieved August 10, 2009 from http://www.nsi.bg/SocialActivities_e/Culture_e.htm

Oikonomou, A. (2004). Legal and Illegal “Operations of Radio Stations from the Perspective of Article 15 paragraph 2 or the Constitution.” DIMEE, 1(2), pp.507-509 (in Greek).

Ordinance No 1 of the Committee for Postal Services and Telecommunications.  (June 18, 1992). Sofia: State Newspaper: 43.

Papathanasopoulos, S. (1993). Liberating Television. Athens : Kastaniotis (in Greek).

Papathanasopoulos, S. (2001). “Media Commercialization and Journalism in Greece.” European Journal of Communication, 16(4), pp. 505-521.

Pesmazoglou, S. (1993). “The 1980s in the Lookong-Glass: PASOK and the Media” in Clogg, R. (ed). Greece, 1981-89. The Populist Decade. New York: Martin’s Press.

Psychogios, D. (2004). The Print Media. Athens: Kastaniotis (in Greek).

Roninger, L. and A. Gunes-Ayata (eds) (1994). Democracy, Clientelism and Civil Society. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.

Simmons, C. and N. Leandros (1993). ‘New Technology and Structural Change in the Greek Printing and Publishing Industry, 1972-1991’, Cyprus Journal of Economics, 6(2), pp. 124-150.

Skamnakis, A. (2006). Politics, Media and Journalism in Greece. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Dublin City University.

National Radio and Television Council (2009) TV and radio stations. Retrieved September 5, 2009 from http://www.esr.gr/arxeion-xml/pages/esr/esrSite/get-index

Venizelos, E. (1989). The Radio-Television Explosion. Constitutional Fremework and Legal Choices. Thessaloniki: Paratiritis (in Greek).

Zacharopoulos, Th.. (2003). ‘The Evolution of Public Service Broadcasting in Greece: From Authoritarianism to Anarchy and Irrelevance’, Global Media Journal 2(2), pp. 1-20.

Zacharopoulos, Th. and E.M. Paraschos (1993). Mass Media in Greece. Power Politics and Privatization. Weatport, Connecticut: Praeger.

Zaharieva, N. (1998). A Year of Reestablishment of the Advertisement Market. In: Media and Advertisement Magazine. Sofia: Market Test Supplement.

* The topic has been analyzed by the author in the following publications: The Patchwork of the Bulgarian Media// Karol Jakubowicz (ed.) “Global Media Journal”, 2008, pp. 69-89 http://www.globalmediajournal.collegium.edu.pl/; Television in Bulgaria on the Net. A chapter in: Nikos Leandros (Ed.) “The Impact of Internet on the Mass Media in Europe” (2006). Abramis, Bury St. Edmunds, Suffolk (UK and USA), pp. 503-513; Fifteen Years of Televised Political Advertising in Bulgaria. A chapter in: Lynda Lee Kaid & Christina Holtz-Bacha (eds.) “The Sage Handbook of Political Advertising” (2006). Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks (Ca), USA, pp. 359-375; Bulgaria: The Online Mirror Image of the Printed Newspapers. A chapter in: Richard van der Wurft & Edmund Laut (eds.) „Print and Online Newspapers in Europe. A Comparative Analysis in 16 countries“ (2005), Her Sprinhuis Publishers, Amsterdam (The Netherlands), pp. 67-78; Mass Media’s Changing Landscape in Bulgaria. Co-authored with Todor Petev. A chapter in: David Paletz and Karol Jakubowicz (Eds.) “Business as Usual. Continuity and Change in Central and Eastern Europe” (2003). Hampton Press, Inc. Cresskill, New Jersey USA, pp. 73-109; Mass Media in Bulgaria. A Source Book (2003) Dortmund: ENTIRE – Working Papers in International Journalism, pp.44; The Challenges of Internet Media to Traditional Media System in Bulgaria A chapter in: “Towards New Media Paradigms: Content, Producers, Organisations and Audiences” (2003). Pamplona (Spain), pp. 531-545; Mass Media System in Bulgaria (1989-1999). Co-authored with Todor Petev. (in English) A chapter in “The Global Network”. (2000) Bucharest: No 13, pp. 7-17; The Dynamics of the Electronic Mass Media System in Bulgaria (1989-1999). A chapter in “The Global Network”. (2000) Bucharest: No 13, pp. 37-57; The Impact of Television on the Democratization Processes. A chapter in Newman B. (ed.) “Handbook of Political Marketing” (1999). Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: Sage Publications. pp. 485-505; Turn-of-the-Century Challenges Facing the Mass Media in Bulgaria. “Media Development”. (1999) No 3, pp. 9-13; Development of Alternative Broadcasting in Bulgaria. A chapter in: “Drustvo I Tehnologija’96”. (1996). Rijeka, Croatia, pp.154-161; Mass Communication in Bulgaria during the Transitional Period (1989-1993) – Points of Research. A chapter in Researching (Investigative) Journalism: A New Model for Public Communication. (1995) Zagreb: Croatian Communicologists Association, Nonacom, pp. 36-42.

[1] Είναι χαρακτηριστικό ότι σύμφωνα με τον Ελληνικό Δείκτη Εμπιστοσύνης στους Θεσμούς (GICI) η τηλεόραση καταλαμβάνει μια από τις τελευταίες θέσεις στη σχετική κατάσταση (42 ^η θέση μεταξύ των 48 θεσμών του δείκτη) καθώς οι αρνητικές κρίσεις είναι σχεδόν τριπλάσιες από τις θετικές. According to the Greek Index of Confidence in Institutions (GICI) television is among the least trusted institutions in the country (42th place among 48 institutions). Ενώ η τηλεόραση αποδοκιμάζεται κοινωνικά η εικόνα είναι αρκετά διαφορετική για το ραδιόφωνο και το διαδίκτυο που καταλαμβάνουν την 11 ^η και 13 ^η θέση αντίστοιχα με τις θετικές κρίσεις να είναι διπλάσιες από τις αρνητικές. ³While television is socially disapproved the situation is quite different as regards radio and the Internet which occupy 11th and 13th place respectively with positive views twice as many as negative. In the case of television the negative views are three times more than the positive opinions. Published in Kathimerini, 28/12/2008