TV Journalists’ Attitudes

A Norwegian journalist from TVNorgestated that the viewer is fooled when somebody gets coverage at somebody else’s expense. Additionally, he believes that the journalist sells his integrity when this happens.

A TV2journalist from Norway said that journalistic content and advertising must be kept separate, that a journalist must never put himself in a situation which might raise doubts about the integrity of the journalistic content.

A Norwegian journalist from NRKsaid that journalistic objectivity is broken, and the trust that people have in the journalist is totally ruined.

Some had a more divided attitude, another NRKjournalist from Norway among them. He said that in principle he is against hidden advertising, but it is possible to differentiate a little bit. One thing is news and current affairs programmes which demand integrity, but when it comes to those programs which are completely sponsored, maybe it is possible to be a little more relaxed on the rules and principles. At the same time he said:

“If you can buy the integrity of the journalist, you fuck around with the whole fundament.” He also believes that it is wrong to fool the TV audience.

Another TV journalist from NRKin Norway had a double attitude toward hidden advertising. She said that first you have the idealistic attitude and second you have the practical attitude. If you work for a media company and you have to fill three hours of broadcasting, or you are supposed to deliver material non-stop to your editor in a network environment, then it happens. It is not a situation somebody wants to be in, but it is a result of time pressure in practical work.

“The production pressure is too high. There are too few journalists who don’t have the time to work independently.

I believe everybody does it, but with a very shameful feeling in their mouth”, she said. She is aware of the practice of hidden advertising at all of the places where she has worked. She has experienced such calls frequently, but never experienced somebody saying that if you do this, then you will get money. The journalist said that it is one thing if a little festival gets in touch because it needs coverage, but what she reacts more to is ministries which cleverly try to sell the arrival of a minister somewhere. She believes that hidden advertising is the result of laziness and time pressure.

A journalist from TV2in Norway said that the advantage of hidden advertising is that when a company hands out prizes, it is OK that they don’t have to buy these prizes if they show them during the programme.

Some journalists also felt uneasy about situations in which they are not sure whether money is involved A TV journalist from TVNorgein Norway admitted that even though it is not possible to buy your way right into the media, there are problematic matters in relation to public relations offices and information bureaus. He said that it is difficult to be against the practice that somebody calls and offers information. He gets calls every week from people who want to sell themselves to the TV programme. News tips are evaluated if nobody is paid. He claimed that it is possible to look through suggestions from PR offices and find topics that are legitimate journalistically, but he saw this as being problematic nonetheless.

Asked to state why those TV programmes which allowthe participation of people in return for pay or services do so, the majority of TV journalists both in Latvia (71%) and in Norway (57%) supported the answer that “only in that way it is possible to ensure the financing and presentation of the TV programme.” 25% of the TV journalists in Latvia, but only 7%

of the TV journalists in Norway, thought the answer that “it is a good way for those behind the TV programme to earn more” was the most proper answer. 4% of the TV journalists in Latvia and 13% of the TV journalists in Norway picked the argument that “it happens all over the world” as their answer. The TV journalists in Lithuania thought that three factors were equally important (29%) – “it is a good way for those behind the TV programmes to earn more”, “only in that way it is possible to ensure the financing and presentation of the TV programme”, and “it happens all over the world.”

Figure 11.Factors behind the decision to allow the practice.

TV journalists’ answers to the question: “Many of those who produce TV programmes which allow the participation of people in return for pay or services do so because … (please pick only the most important factor).”

Even though the interviews reflected a wider choice of arguments in favour of the practice, the argument that was repeated most frequently was linked to the question of professional survival.

“The product is expensive. The financing is not sufficient. It is a dead-end situation,” said a Latvian public TV journalist.

“It helps the programmes to survive. A lot of programmes are sponsored in this way,” a TV journalist in Lithuania said.

“It’s capitalism. It helps some channels or programmes to survive,” said another TV journalist in Lithuania.

“Everything depends on the TV budget. Less money, more tolerance for such practices,” said another TV journalist in Lithuania.

“If the television channel cannot make the ends meet in other ways, then of course we can discuss the situation of having to choose between facing big losses and going bankrupt, as opposed to continuing this practice. In that case I would not be the one who raises my hand and says, OK, come on, let’s give up, let’s close shop,” said a journalist who produces programmes for TV3in Latvia.

“My heart hurts, but without support from the City Council, we would not survive financially,” explained a TV journalist from a regional TV station in Latvia.

“Unfortunately the situation is that there comes a time when a financial crisis starts, the sponsor leaves or something happens. For the programme to exist, one has to make use of this [practice]. We have done it ourselves, only with one pre-condition. If somebody suggests a topic to us and sponsors the programme, we want to stay independent. Well, we invite him, we respect his viewpoint or the viewpoint of his

It happens all over the world

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Answers from Lithuanian TV journalists, % Answers from Norwegian TV journalists, % Answers from Latvian TV journalists, % Only in that way it is

possible to ensure the financing and presentation of the TV programme N/ A

Only in that way you can avoid non-serious business representatives

It is a good way for those behind the TV programme to earn more

recommended people, but point one is that we must have the right to show the opposite viewpoint, as well, and point two, the topic must be one which corresponds to the specifics of our programme. If that is not the case, then you can bring a wagon of money and we will still say no,” said a TV journalist who produces programmes for Latvian public TV. After a while the journalist added: “Even at that moment when we say that we want to reflect the opposite side, then to a certain degree my objectivity is being restricted anyway.”

One TV journalist in Latvia linked the practice to the protection of domestic products.

“Earlier I worked in a “commercial” way, but I have to say that we have never done something against our consciousness, shown people whom we don’t respect. As a matter of fact, it is Latvian entrepreneurs, about whom we should maybe produce stories. Just so, and about their products, as well. To my mind, one should sell as many products of Latvian origin as possible. One has to do everything possible so that we can keep our entrepreneur, don’t you think?” asked a TV journalist from Latvian public TV.

A similar argument was mentioned by a TV journalist from a production company in Norway. He said that what is positive in hidden advertising is that one can produce more Norwegian drama. But he added that it is important that journalistic freedom be maintained.

The TV journalist in Latvia who expressed the most positive attitude towards this practice presented several arguments in favour of it.

“One factor could be promotion. This maybe relates more to live broadcasting, because then the person is as he is – natural. And through his participation he can explain, clarify and show the benefits of a product or service,”

said a TV journalist from LNTand TV5in Latvia. “Another argument, for instance, is that we have an issue or a discussion, where something negative is discussed, something is not done. And we have this person x whom we expect to provide answers as to why. It is exactly the same, the answer is real, both if it is prepared in advance or it is like an explanation from that person about what is going on. Then we have a clear situation, either that person doesn’t know, he is not competent, if he doesn’t want to say it, or he says it, well there are various possibilities”, she continued, and added:

“It is so, if a competition is announced, there are, let’s say, 10 companies which have the same services, and they all want to take part in the provision of services. And then the so-called tender is organised, where you also have a participation fee. In order to take part in a project or a bid for tenders for larger services, you have to pay a participation fee, and then the evaluation committee sits down, evaluates and (announces) that it will select exactly this company to provide the services. That is participation in return for money, as well,” the LNTand TV5 journalist in Latvia concluded.

Asked to state why those TV programmes which do not allowthe participation of people in return for pay or services do so, the majority of the TV journalists in Norway (60%) and Latvia (52%) supported the answer that “the practice cannot be merged with media ethics standards”. For TV journalists in Lithuania, however, the most important factor – mentioned by 33% – was that “in return for money, one can make advertising”, while 29% argued that “the practice cannot be merged with media ethics standards” as the most important. 24% of respondents both in Norway and Latvia and 17% in Lithuania picked the answer “it makes it difficult to ask critical questions”, 21% in Lithuania, 20% in Latvia and 17% in Norway opted for the statement that “it gives the journalists the possibility to pick guests for the programme independently from their ability to pay”, and 4% in Latvia, but 0% in Norway selected the answer “in return for money one can make advertising”

as the most appropriate answer.

Figure 12.Factors behind the decision not to allow the practice.

TV journalists’ answers to the question: “Many of those TV programmes which do not allow the participation of people in return for pay or services do so because … (please pick only the most important factor)”.

Arguments related to media ethics were central when TV journalists were interviewed and asked about arguments against such a practice.

“Journalistic ethics are a holy thing. The ethical standards should be held as high as possible, in particular in a society such as ours, where – bearing in mind that democratic practices have not developed very strongly – there is a wish to see a conspiracy everywhere. Then the media harm themselves irreversibly by engaging in such a practice, because it lessens the trust of the audience toward the work of the media,” said a Latvian public TVjournalist.

“People loose trust, the credibility of the news will disappear for the TV audience, if a person shows up and you can see clearly that he has paid. You will automatically lose your audience. Journalists themselves become biased and look at matters in a non-objective way. In the end it all comes down to the fact that the information is not credible, and the information is not objective,” said a TV journalist from LNTin Latvia.

“If the TV audience grows accustomed to a situation in which a TV programme on gardening presents a spade only from one producer of spades, if the audience considers this to be normal, then I presume that the audience will also start to watch very carefully the programme that is hosted by Domburs (host of a discussion program focusing mostly on political issues) and think that probably he also does the same, people will think about how much they get paid for that,” said a Latvian public TVjournalist.

“Quality and objectivity suffer,” stated another TV journalist atLatvian public TV.

“TV is an opinion-maker, and by engaging in hidden advertising, it does not respect the audience, because opinion is constructed,” said a TV journalist in Lithuania.

“The market economy is the most important thing for these people (those who favour hidden advertising). They don’t pay attention to objective journalism and provide influenced information. They think that the audience is silly and cannot understand it [hidden advertising],” said another TV journalist in Lithuania.

It makes it difficult to ask critical questions

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Answers from Lithuanian TV journalists, % Answers from Norwegian TV journalists, % Answers from Latvian TV journalists, % In return for money one

can make advertising N/ A

It can not be merged with media ethics standards

It makes it possible to pick the guests of the programme independently of their ability to pay

“Old people in particular cannot come to a clear understanding about what is truth and what is not on TV. It’s not fair,” said another TV journalist in Lithuania.

“It’s against the ethics code! Hidden advertising doesn’t respect the audience. It’s a lie,” said another TV journalist in Lithuania.

Some TV journalists in Lithuania argued that hidden advertising eliminates boundaries.

“Hidden advertising shows the way to a condition in which you don’t feel any limits. It’s a big risk for corruption without consciousness”, the TV journalist said.

“There are no boundaries, you just want to earn money, and you don’t pay attention to ethics or morals,” said another TV journalist in Lithuania.

The TV journalists did not hide the negative effect which the practice has had upon them as journalists.

““I feel like a prostitute when I am on my way to the interviews that somebody has paid for”, said a regional TV journalist in Latvia.

“It is a degradation of journalists and disinformation in society. Then we can arrive at the weakening of democracy,” said a TV journalist from TV3in Latvia. “It is degradation of journalists because the journalist gets used to working only in return for money, not taking into consideration what he should do, but only obeying some kind of order in return for money. That means that his initiative, his creative freedom, his wish to get to know something actually disappear, and he does only what the sponsor tells him to do. This weakens democracy because society does not receive unbiased information. It doesn’t learn what it must learn because somebody places restrictions on the process. See, to this point we will report, but further on we will not report. And due to this, they will lose the possibility to evaluate whether the information that they get is honest or not, if it is true. And then they cannot draw any conclusions, and they can not be politically active,”

she continued.

Many TV journalists also pointed out the negative effect which the practice has on the prestige of the media.

“It ruins the prestige of the media. The audience and the interviewed people look at the media as a corrupt body,”

said a Latvian public TVjournalist. He continued:“Corruption occurs when somebody gets something not because he is the best and the most proper one, but because he has made a deal. Consequently, to my mind, we can draw an equality mark between this practice and corruption – starting from a situation where only one producer of drugs and spades can present its viewpoint, and moving on to much more serious political and political-economical matters.”

“Given that this practice, broadly speaking, is the same as bribery, we can definitely define it as corruption,” said another journalist atLatvian public TV.

One TV journalist in Lithuania did not see anything negative in the practice.

“It’s impossible to find arguments against such a practice. Everybody does it, so nothing should be changed,”

said the journalist.