Researching Media Change in Central and Eastern Europe

Hamburg.
The final keynote speaker at ECREA 2010 is Beata Klimkiewicz, whose interest is in media system change in central and eastern Europe (CEE), focussing especially on structural processes. That said, the boundaries that define CEE are highly elusive – national boundaries in this area have shifted more than elsewhere in Europe, not least in recent decades, which means that there are various overlapping and conflicting criteria for defining geographic, regional, ethnic, and other boundaries. Additionally, the boundary changes which happened in 1989 provided a distinguishing generational experience for scholars in this field, which is not necessarily shared with the generations preceding or following them.

This can be examined from a number of perspectives. Much CEE research underlines the fall of communism as a unique and isolated moment in history; CEE societies are said to have been overtaken by processes of change that are of unprecedented magnitude and complexity in modern history – but this claim of uniqueness derives from a fairly self-centred preoccupation specifically with CEE history: many similar processes in other global regions have been overlooked. Changes in South Africa or South America during the 1990s can be usefully compared with developments in CEE, for example – they, too, aimed for media pluralism and diversity and for guarantees of freedom of expression, of course.

Media systems change in CEE has been conceived largely through the lens of the normative other, too. This normativity have been taken for granted, forcing scholars to investigate media change mainly through the lens of how well CEE media measure up to western norms. But the western model is also furnished with standards that are composed by international institutions.

This generates a scholarship of disappointment that highlights the limited applicability of the Western model to CEE nations. There is a mimetic orientation that focusses on the concept of imitation, ignoring more indigenous media philosophies. There is mechanical copying, selectivity and superficiality, import without any reflective change, imitation, transplantation, importing.

Media system change can also be viewed through a development lens, a process of increasing capacity of media systems to fulfil their needs at a progressively higher level. Media systems in CEE countries have been radically reconstructed in a very short, compressed timeframe, marked by different length and intensity than has been experienced in other nations. This has to do with processes of globalisation and Europeanisation that open and widen media landscapes to institutions and products that were previously limited to other regions.

This can be seen as a form of asymmetrical globalisation, a superficial and selective compatibility which enforces a premature entry to stages of development which do not correspond to the historical time of national development in CEE countries. This generates many tensions – imbalances in investment, media regulatory resonance with political needs, conflicting views on journalism as a profession, and limited autonomy of public service media.

So, what models are appropriate for CEE nations; what commonalities set them apart from other parts of Europe? Can a common model be distinguished that integrates these commonalities? One model which has been identified is that or mediterraneisation: according to that view, post-communist countries have experienced an Italianisation of their media – they are even seen as politically closer to North African regimes than to southern European countries. This has been a productive metaphor in the literature, in fact.

One key issue in this context is the question of foreign ownership – a politically sensitive and even emotional topic. Foreign-owned media organisations dominate specific parts of the media market in many CEE nations; they were seen as necessary for revamping local media landscapes and old media routines, perhaps also enabling CEE nations to become a supplemental engine to Western media. This is far from unproblematic, of course.

But what can be perceived as the impact of foreign ownership? Transnational owners are very cautious in experimenting with genuinely new projects; they have tended to clone their existing products for CEE markets. Not all such initiatives have succeeded, in fact, and some domestic tycoons have re-emerged as well (perhaps especially driving some of the more risky initiatives). What’s missing here is the opposite direction: CEE media have not been able to place their products in a global marketplace, contrary to many other media markets (Bollywood, manga, telenovelas, etc.). CEE-based entities are almost entirely absent from the media directories of the European Audiovisual Observatory, for example.

Scholars have been very attentive to the issue of media politicisation; political elites tend to control the media at many different levels, and media systems cannot necessarily be viewed as parallel to political spheres. Public service media, too, are examined for their level of autonomy from political interests; enabling regulatory frameworks were generally established in CEE countries, but public serviced media have remained in crisis for the most part, partically because the legal and procedural safeguards of independence have failed to ensure full independence from political interests.

Studying media change involves examining the construction, apprehension and use of conceptual models themselves; we draw on particular perspectives that are determined by generational experience and thematic preoccupations. We operate on a territory which has some very elusive boundaries.

And that’s it from ECREA 2010 – congratulations to the organisers, and see you all at ECREA 2012 in Istanbul, 24-27 Oct. 2012. The conference theme: “Social Media and Global Voices”.