Richard Bærug
5. Explanations of the Practice
A key question in this project has been to clarify what the TV journalists consider as the most likely explanation for the practice.
In the questionnaire, 43% of the TV journalists in Latvia considered the low salary level of journalists in Latvia to be the main factor in explaining the practice that guests can take part in TV programmes by paying or by providing services.
Slightly fewer of the TV journalists in Latvia – 39% – spoke to a lack of understanding of media ethics amongst TV journalists in Latvia as the main factor. Among the TV journalists in Norway, the explanations of the practice were much different.
None of the TV journalists in Norway considered the low salary level to be the main factor. Most TV journalists in Norway (54%) said that a lack of understanding of media ethics amongst journalists is the main factor. 25% of the TV journalists in Norway claimed that the fact that journalists in Norway follow world tendencies is the main argument, while this idea was not mentioned by any of the TV journalists in Latvia. Most Lithuanian TV journalists (38%) thought that “a good understanding of the specifics of TV” among TV journalists is the main factor. 25% of the TV journalists in Lithuania argued that a lack of understanding of media ethics amongst TV journalists is the main factor.
Realising that the questionnaires could hardly provide a full illustration of the explanations for this practice, this issue was in sharp focus during the interviews.
LTV1(Latvia) LTV7(Latvia) LNT(Latvia) TV3(Latvia) TV5(Latvia) NRK1(Norway) NRK2(Norway) TV2 (Norway) TV3(Norway) TVNorge(Norway) LRT(Lithuania) LNK(Lithuania) TV3(Lithuania) BTV(Lithuania)
Increase 39 43 32 18 25 0 0 7 36 36 25 40 40 35
Decrease 29 18 18 14 4 7 7 17 7 7 10 10 5 15
No change 14 21 29 36 32 43 43 43 21 29 25 15 20 15
No such practice 0 0 0 4 7 36 36 21 21 14 25 10 10 10
N/A 0 11 14 18 21 14 14 14 14 14 15 25 25 25 . . . .
. . . .
Figure 8.Explanations of the practice.
TV journalists’ answer to the question: “The practice that guests can take part in TV programmes in your country by paying or by providing services is explained by … (please choose only the factor which, in your opinion, is the most essential).”
The financial issue has many aspects. As pointed out by many Latvian TV journalists, it is hard to survive on a regular salary.
“Television is a serious instrument through which you can immediately reach your audience, and it is a big goal.
There are people who are interested in opening up their wallets to pay for their participation or that of others on TV. Journalists are not the wealthiest part of society. Consequently, there are people who pay and people who accept the money,” said a TV journalist from a media company which produces programmes for Latvian Public TV.
Another Latvian Public TVjournalist added:
“Low salaries are an explanation, but it is not always that those with the lower salaries are those who attract [such money]. There is not a direct link there.”
Most of the TV journalists in Lithuania mentioned money and financing as explanations for the practice in their country.
“Commercial TV has no other support, so it’s the only way to earn some extra money and keep programmes alive”, said a TV journalist in Lithuania.
“It helps both TV and the journalists. Sponsors support some programmes, there is nothing bad in that”, said another TV journalist in Lithuania.
“It is an additional source of money”, argued another TV journalist in Lithuania.
One Latvian TV journalist opposed the idea that low salaries are to blame.
“This is not a question of low salaries. Just as with traffic police officers, the journalist has a choice to either stay and work on the basis of the salary that is paid to him – because this is your profession and your call – Journalists in the country
follow world media tendencies
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Answers from Lithuanian TV journalists, % Answers from Norwegian TV journalists, % Answers from Latvian TV journalists, % Low salary level
of journalists in the country N/ A
Lack of understanding of media ethics among journalists in the country
Good understanding of the specifics of TV
or to leave. Of course, many people don’t think that one should work at the place which you feel is calling them.
They justify their actions by saying that salaries are low. That is disgusting and stupid,” said a Latvian Public TV journalist.
The financial issue is of importance not only for the individual TV journalist in Latvia and Lithuania, but also for the TV channels.
“Financial problems are one factor which explains the practice. Possibly this has more to do with public television”, said a TV3journalist from Latvia, then adding: “The lack of transparency (in public TV) is to my mind what makes it impossible to evaluate whether everything there is done in the interests of the public.
At the commercial televisions the fact is that the business interests of the owners and the bosses are very diverse. There is always somebody who wants to benefit from that. There the principle usually is – “I wash my hands of the matter.””
A TV journalist from an Estonian TV production company pointed to the lack of finances.
“The lack of finances influences programme quantity and quality. The law demands a certain amount of self-production but sets limits on advertising. Both demands are eased by permitting the paid format on air. This allows us to broadcast self-produced programmes and to ask for additional advertising money from the companies which do not buy expensive air time”, he said.
The financial issue plays a role for TV journalists in Norway, as well. A TV journalist from TV2in Norway said that one of the factors which explains why there is hidden advertising on TV is that many of the programmes which the TV channel broadcasts are not produced by the channel. Consequently, the channel doesn’t have control over the agreements which underpin the process. You can have sponsor agreements of which the channel is unaware, and these agreements might be in a spoken, not a written form. The journalist gave a hypothetical example:
“We provide NOK 100 000 for this programme, and then we want our logo on the programme.”
Another TV journalist in Norway, one who is working for a production company, said that special programmes are often made possible only because of external financing. He was convinced that the NRKchannel encourages companies which produce documentaries to find somebody to finance the programmes.
A Norwegian journalist from NRKstressed that the problem is that television productions are so expensive that one must find external financing.
A Norwegian journalist from TV2said thatNRKonce showed a documentary about the Tusenfryd amusement park which afterwards turned out to have been financed by the park itself. This case led to new rules atNRK.
A Norwegian TV journalist from TVNorgealso touched upon the financing issue.
“To me it seems that the production companies [which produce TV programmes for the TV channels] sit down and think about which [programme] might attract support, and then they work in that direction,” he said. He believes, in other words, that a TV channel will be more likely to select a cheaper production where financing is in place than a production that has not found the necessary support.
Another journalist from TVNorgementioned the fact that staff cuts and greater economic pressure mean less investment in investigative journalism and self-produced stories. In such a situation, it becomes easier to accept offers from PR offices and other external forces.
The argument that a weak economy in a company stimulates an unlucky match between those who are responsible for revenue and those who produce the journalistic product was mentioned by a Norwegian TV journalist from NRK, as well.
He pointed to an imaginary example:
“This week it is possible for us to produce something positive about this or that, because now we have this series of articles or this advertising campaign.” He holds the opinion that there are a few journalists who are not honourable. He believes that you cannot blame those who try to place hidden advertising on the programmes, because it is the journalists and the editorial staff who bear the responsibility .
A journalist from TV2in Norway believes that hidden advertising exists, because all editorial decisions that are taken by the commercial channels take into consideration the need to earn money and to achieve high audience numbers.
The Norwegian TV journalists who were interviewed had not heard about specific cases in which somebody had paid money to become a guest on a TV programme, but as one Norwegian TV journalist from NRKput it, he is “not so naïve as to believe that it has not happened.” However, services provided to journalists by somebody who wants exposure on a TV programme are a well-known phenomenon.
Another Norwegian TV journalist who works for a production company doesn’t think that there is direct payment, but adds that there is money which is channelled into the production environment or in commercials.
He said that there is no individual person who earns money from this. “That would be called bribery, and that is not legal,” he said.
The journalist said that he is so strict about this that he doesn’t even accept a cup of coffee from the interviewee.
He thinks that the ethics of journalism are somewhat in bad shape and that the cards are often shuffled.
Payment of travel-related costs and free tickets – that was something that was mentioned by several TV journalists in Norway. One Norwegian journalist from TVNorgementioned the Qvart (music) festival and the Hemsedal ski resort.
“The sort of payment which we are discussing is unclear, it is not the same as with the pharmaceutical companies which simply make a bank transfer of money, but when the Qvart festival sends out invitations to journalists and reporters and offers them various nice things, then that is a sort of payment. Then there are programmes which are linked quite directly to commercial products, and there the issue is profit for the owners, the programmes are not linked to good purposes [as such],” he said. The TVNorgejournalist also said that journalists have had relations with the Hemsedal ski resort during the skiing season. He believes that when journalists get free passes to the skiing centre and get all practical things which they need in order to be there and to produce winter reports, then this is on the borderline of an unacceptable payment.
The Lithuanian TV journalists who were interviewed said that there are different types of agreements or discounts provided for those who pay for participation on a TV show.
“Yes, I know about such discounts. Everything depends on the programme format, the channel and the audience that is reached by the programme or channel. A programme is a TV product which can be sold,” said a TV journalist in Lithuania.
“It depends on what kind of customer you have. If it’s a politician, then the payment comes from the party budget.
If it is a private company or person who needs to be advertised, then there are a lot of ways to earn money or provide discounts,” said another TV journalist in Lithuania.
“Some of the journalists get money, some get travel or products, some gain an office when they need it,” said another Lithuanian TV journalist.
A Norwegian TV journalist who works for a production company said that he gets irritated when he sees connections.
“Some years ago two of the world’s largest cruise ships were launched, and there were many journalists who were invited to go on the first tour. They got to travel for a couple of days. After the tour there were lots of articles. That is advertising.”
He also mentioned the concept of ‘launching journalism’as a type of hidden advertising problem in Norway. Talk shows often present guests who have just published a book or released a record, and they get a chance to promote this. The journalist added, however, that much of this appears to be rather innocent.
A Norwegian journalist from TVNorgementioned performance pressure as a factor in explaining the practice. He thinks that the factor which contributes toward turning hidden advertising into a phenomenon is that those who accept hidden advertising are successful. It becomes more and more important to do well in the media and more dangerous and more expensive not to do well.
Many TV journalists in Latvia referred to the failures of Latvian Public TV.
“My opinion is thatLatvian Public TVdeliberately promotes this practice with its strategy,” said an independent journalist who works for Latvian Public TV. She continued: “These songs of sorrow and unpleasant stories which are being presented to us are nothing more than theatre, and maybe somebody here actually believes that it doesn’t happen. If I, as an independent producer, were to sell the [3 minute-long] advertising slot for the highest price – which is not possible – but even if I did it in theory, and then if I were to pay the television station and the people who take part in creating the programme, then I would end up losing LVL 100 (EUR 150). However, if I turn the programme into six “commercial stories” at the standard price, well, then I earn money. Luckily, I have a sponsor, so I don’t have to produce the “commercial stories”. But for the LVL 900 (EUR 1 350) [which you theoretically can earn from three minutes of ads], you can not produce the programme, shoot the video, pay the salaries, put together a half-hour long film and then also pay taxes to the state on top of all of that. Never in your life. Never!”
“As soon as they (the independent producers) have direct contact with the advertising environment, then the advertising environment understands that they have direct access to the authors and those creating the programme – and then the problems start. I know that as an independent producer you can have very tough fights with sponsors to explain to them that the fact that they are sponsoring a programme does not mean that somebody will speak nicely about them during the programme. Many sponsors expect that,” explained a Latvian Public TVjournalist.
“I presume that if our advertising people had been working wisely at that time (in the beginning of the 1990s), then they could have keptLatvian Public TVin a good position. If only they hadn’t let those advertisers disappear so easily,” said a Latvian Public TVjournalist.
A TV journalist from a production company in Estonia which produces TV programmes for TV channels in Estonia reported that the programmes which they produce are commissioned by TV channels for an agreed sum of money, and the sale of advertising slots, be it for commercials or for the so-called “supporters”, is the playground of the TV channel itself.
Correspondingly, the sponsors have no influence on the programme content. He also said, however, that things might be different at other production companies.
“There are several smaller [TV production] companies which have specialised in producing commercial formats.
These typically deal with cooking, beauty, interior design, travelling, wine and other such issues, and in that case the channel does not pay the producer. On the contrary, the producer pays the channel to get these programmes on air. This cost and the production cost are covered by the producer, who then sells the programme to companies and to general supporters piece by piece, in return for showing their products or brands. This practice is not made clear for the viewers in any way. It is not communicated to the viewers that all such programme type are covered piece by piece by the sponsors, and the program content is influenced by them verystrongly,” stated the TV journalist from the production company in Estonia, then continuing:
“In the case of prime time entertainment, such sponsorship appears relevantly rarely. An exception is, for instance, the Urmas Ott talk show, which unquestionably advertises one hotel and one car brand. And, of course, all the journalistic-entertainment shows are under continuous pressure from PR people. For instance, Kevel and its successor,“Console,” have received dozens of offers to tackle topics which are obviously useful to certain companies.
Money as such is offered in very rare cases, however,” he said.
“In very many cases the producers have agreed with companies on reduced prices for services, or they receive them free of charge – services like transport, equipment, clothing for the program hosts – and in return the company is mentioned and thanked in the final part of the programme, and the logo is shown. This practice is known to the channels. Our company has never faced a situation where such a deal has created (a situation in which) the supporters can interfere with the programme’s content. Obviously such deals are made, because program budgets are very low and do not allow producers to buy such services at normal prices.”
“A separate topic is ETV (Estonian Public TV)as an advertising-free channel and its policy in these matters. On the one hand, even supporter logos are forbidden, but on the other hand, the channel permits obvious advertising in the programmes so as to ensure financial or other kinds of material support. For example, there is the case of “Laulukarussell”, which, as a children’s programme, is a very telling case. The prizes for the singers come from companies, and the show devotes a lot of time to showing the brands and products,” said the TV journalist from a production company in Estonia.
Several TV journalists in Latvia said thatTV3is the only TV channel in Latvia which pays for the work that is created by independent producers in the country.
“Latvian public TV, by contrast, offers the independent producers not money, but advertising minutes,” said an independent journalist who works for Latvian public TV.
A lack of control from top management at the TV companies, as well as the National Radio and Television Council, were mentioned as factors which explain the situation.
“At the moment there is no interest [in controlling the situation]. It is [thought] better to allow it, because then there is less in the way of dissatisfaction with low salaries. The top management of the television are interested in closing their eyes so that the producers stay, so that they don’t create disorder”, said a Latvian public TVjournalist.
“The TV stations have let this happen, because there are absolutely no controls and no sanctions on the part of the broadcasting corporation”, said a Latvian public TVjournalist.
“I am afraid that this is a question of the extent to which top management at the television stations understand that the task of the media is not only to earn money, but also to fulfil a certain social responsibility,” said a Latvian public TVjournalist.
“For years I have not seen the Radio and Television Council doing anything in this area. At the end of the day, the law on radio and television requires them to observe elementary principles. It is obvious, that the law is being violated,” said a Latvian public TVjournalist.
Traditions and attitudes among journalists are important reasons in explaining the situation, according to many TV journalists in Latvia.
“In some ways the principles of competition perhaps function a little bit differently than in the West. Everyone lives more or less in his or her own cave and according to his or her own principles. In a sense there is enough hard and tough competition, maybe the principles of journalism have evaporated in this situation. Everyone fights more for his or her own existence and is less eager to debate, to get involved in professional journalism organisations and to think about how ethical somebody else’s action might be,” said a journalist who produces programmes for TV3in Latvia.
“I feel that it is a pity that the scheme which was recently disclosed with respect to relations between LNTand the Rı¯ga City Council created so little fuss. In that case we have to think about the ability of journalists to evaluate the situation, about their interest or lack of interest in producing repeated stories about it. There is an entire scheme on how the money is transferred, including e-Rı¯ga, Rı¯ga News, street poster ads, possibly the scheme goes even further,” said a TV3journalist in Latvia.