Greek television channels: a new beginning with old materials?

 
Despina Biri


In the early hours of Friday 2 September, the results of the bidding process granting broadcast licenses to four private television channels were announced. Bidding took over 65 hours to be completed, and bidders were not allowed to leave the building of the Secretariat General for Information and Communication until bidding for all four licenses had been completed.

Since the creation of private channels in 1989, media owners had not paid for broadcast licenses, which, legally, must be granted through a public competition process, providing access to public broadcast frequencies. In a nexus of corruption, private media were allowed to broadcast without paying for the requisite licenses, in exchange for favorable reporting for government policies. Moreover, some media owners are also the owners of large construction companies, which took on large contracts for public infrastructure.

The four new media owners who have secured a license are as follows:

Mr Ioannis Alafouzos, owner of SKAI TV - secured a license for the fee of €43.6m
Mr Christos Kalogritsas, who will set up a brand new TV channel, with a license amounting to €52.6m
Mr Thodoris Kyriakou, owner of the ANT1 TV station, with a license amounting to €75.9m
Mr Vangelis Marinakis, who will set up a new media station for a license fee amounting to €73.9m

The total public revenue from the bidding process is an unprecedented €246m, a sum that even Minister of State, Nikos Pappas (who made it his mission to carry out the competition), did not expect to be so high.

Politically, the competition is a victory for the government,as the opposition, and New Democracy in the main, appeared to side with the oligarchs and their  status of impunity. It is also a victory in that TV channels, despite their very serious objections, were forced to participate and to accept the process. This victory offers no guarantee, however, in matters of substance: the quality of reporting, media pluralism, whether or not new networks of corruption will be created, and, last but not least, labor relations in TV channels.
 
Public reaction has so far been mixed. While the high sum paid to the public purse is generally seen favorably, this is not the case regarding the media owners who have secured a license. In contrast to the government narrative, promising to "end corruption" in the media sector, commentators point out that, by looking at the names of the people who filed an application for a broadcast license, as well as the names of those who did successfully bid for one, it's plain to see that media content will amount to more of the same, i.e. biased reporting, representing the interests of the channel owners. Moreover, the high sum which will be paid to the public sector in exchange for broadcast licenses has been contrasted to the sums for which other public property has been sold, most notably the TRAINOSE rail infrastructure network, sold earlier this summer to an Italian rail conglomerate for €45m, a figure considered to be scandalously low by many.

AnalyzeGreece has previously covered developments in the media sector in Greece:
Interview with National Radio and Television Council member, George Pleios

An analysis of the Greek media landscape by Dimitra Drakaki

Interview with the founders of a new media initiative for Greek news in English



Despina Biri is a researcher and writer on health care issues. She blogs at despinabiri.wordpress.com and bakterienfureureseele.wordpress.com
  • Published in POLITICS

The Failed State of Greek Media

The media landscape in Greece has been described as suffering from a lack of pluralism, whereby a handful of media moguls set the predominant discourses through their newspapers, TV stations, and online outlets. In 2016, Greece finished 89th in the World Press Freedom Index, making it the second-lowest country ranking in the European Union with 80% of the population showing distrust in the country’s TV channels.

Before the leftist ruling party SYRIZA came into power, it pledged to regulate the lawlessness of the media scene and dismantle the old establishments of interest-driven reporting. A series of recent consecutive incidents like the on-air intervention of a media owner in a morning show on his TV channel, or the resistance to a new law introducing a bidding process for private broadcast licenses, highlight that the regime of media “oligarchs” is still firmly rooted.

The boss on line one

On June 6, Dimitris Kontominas, the Alpha media group owner, a leading TV, radio and production group, intervened in a morning talk show on Alpha TV channel to express his dissatisfaction about what he described as shameful comments over private initiatives. Mr. Kontominas called on live television to state "I am ashamed as I have never been in my life with what I heard today from Greek citizens who work in a TV channel that does everything to help the people”!

He continued by demanding that the journalists apologize, while angrily adding that “it is a shame, when we have such a big investment, to talk nonsense. It is an area full of refugees, crooks, prostitutes and the like and you talk against this investment. Instead of feeling ashamed for all those things that are not being done, we feel ashamed about the things that are being done.”

The incident was sparked when one of the panellists criticized the deal for the sale and long-term lease of the old Athens airport of Elliniko, a prerequisite demanded by international lenders in order to unlock loans needed to pay off debt to the International Monetary Fund and the European Central Bank. The Lamda-led consortium, a Greek developer that will own part of the property and get a 99-year lease, is planning to turn the 444-acre site into a tourist, business and commercial hub.

Since the beginning of the debt crisis, state assets have always been on the table for privatization as an integral feature of paying off international bailouts. While supporters of such investments claim that they generate jobs and ultimately boost the economy, critics see them as “selling off” public property. “These investors pay out of their pockets, instead of robbing the state with oil, cigarettes, cocaine. It is a shame to say all those things. You should apologize. This is not an opinion,” Mr Kontominas yelled when the TV show host tried to calm her boss down.

The intervention was an extreme incident in the history of Greek media but not a surprising one. In a blatant, upsetting manner, the media mogul crossed the line between covered manipulation to absolute muzzling, only to set an unprecedented level of censorship. The incident symbolizes the intertwined connection between private media, state and business that has historically dominated the Greek media scene.

Manor House

Although there are no recent official data on the total media numbers, the deregulation of the state monopoly of broadcasting frequencies in the late 1980s has led to an overwhelming amount of private TV channels and radio stations, on national and local level. According to the report "Media Policy and Independent Journalism in Greece" by Open Society Foundations, “from a broadcasting field of two public television channels and four radio stations in the late 1980s, it has become an overcrowded environment comprising 160 private television channels and 1,200 private radio stations, none of them equipped with an official license to broadcast, but only temporary licenses renewed by successive governments”.

Despite the high volume, pluralism has not benefited. Media legislation does not contain specific thresholds or limits to prevent high levels of horizontal concentration of ownership as noted by the 2014 Media Pluralism Monitor. This legal and regulatory framework has urged the concentration of private press, television, and radio outlets into large organizations since its early days. To this day a handful of media groups own the biggest nationally circulated newspapers, magazines, broadcast media, as well as press distribution agencies.

Traditionally, the owners of the biggest media conglomerates, the “oligarchs”, as they are commonly referred to in Greece, are also active in other sectors of the economy, such as construction, shipping, health services, new technologies, and banking business, and often end up with favourable government deals. The support is granted through advertising of banks and state owned enterprises, approving loans to private broadcasters that are currently in debt due to the sharp decline of income from advertisements; assignments of public works (roads and government buildings construction etc.) or public property management to media owners with investments in other business sectors.

In this way, media are used as spaces for indirect profit through the strengthening of relations with politicians and the acquisition of state contracts. “Greek media industry controlled by business tycoons whose other successful businesses enable them to subsidize their loss-making media operations. These media operations in turn enable them to exercise political and economic influence. The result is that the media often provides an image of national and international events that is almost uniform but for its division along party lines” as a US Embassy cable by Wikileaks reveals.

Taking MEGA Channel, one of the most well known private channels, as an example, its three main shareholders are some of the richest and most influential families in the country. George Bobolas, the main shareholder, is also the owner of Ellaktor SA construction company which has participated in multi-billion euro contracts with the state, such as the Athens Ring Road, the Rio-Antirio Bridge, the Acropolis Museum and the Athens Olympic Sports Complex. Vardis Vardinogiannis is engaged in the oil and shipping industry, while Stavros Psycharis controls the DOL media company.

The triangle of power between media, state and business is well intertwined resulting in a state whereby journalists are too careful to avoid criticism to the government of the day, while media owners exploit their outlets for purposes beyond communication. The relationship is a dialectical one and a vicious circle is fuelled by governments offering financial support to the media that in exchange offer favourable reporting to the ruling party’s actions. Over the last year, many cases have highlighted how the two sides interfere in each other’s work.

In February 2016,  the publisher of a low circulation newspaper was arrested with two other journalists on charges of extorting huge sums in advertising from officials at public organizations, banks and businesses. The publisher Panagiotis Mavrikos, who was charged with felony and misdemeanor, including blackmail and being part of a criminal gang, had appeared in the payroll of New Democracy receiving the amount of €18,450 per month, according to the newspaper Parapolitika.

How new is this page?

Prior to SYRIZA’s electoral victory in January 2015 the party had committed to tackle the long-standing relationships of clientelism in Greece and declare a war to the media “oligarchs”. A year later a parliamentary examination committee started an investigation of the legality of advertising expenditure of Greek banks to media and political parties over a period of the last 10 years. The Committee was established following the proposal of the ruling SYRIZA-ANEL coalition last March.

In another attempt in February 2016, parliament passed a law, backed by the ruling coalition and strongly criticized by the opposition and the Association of Private TV Stations of National Range. The new law, which is part of the country’s commitment under the latest bailout, aims to regulate the media market and, allegedly, bring to a halt the link between state and private interests.

The aim is to eventually launch a channel license competition for broadcasting tenders where four out of eight national TV stations would obtain a licence. The biggest media channels dissatisfied with the decision appealed to the Council of State, Greece’s highest administrative court. The application of MEGA Channel, which is threatened with bankruptcy due to a huge amount of overdue debts, was rejected on June 30.

A few days after the bill was amended by parliament, Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras was accused of an alleged bribe attempt to media owner Stavros Psycharis. The newspaper “To Vima” – that belongs to Mr. Psycharis’ media group - published an article revealing secret meetings between the two men prior to SYRIZA’s electoral victory in January 2015. According to the article Mr. Tsipras allegedly asked for the support of the influential man, promising that loans taken by his media conglomerate will be erased, and offering political mediation for the acquisition of the total ownership of MEGA TV channel.

After the publication, both sides engaged in a war of words where each one accused the other for falsification of the facts. Whether the allegations are true or not the by now unimpeachable Tsipras began to test the water. The question is whether he and his party will manage to escape immune or will go missing in the media abyss.

AthensLive: New, independent and crowdfunded


AthensLive is a new and ambitious initiative in Greek media. It is a collaboration between Greek and international journalists, including the visual journalists of FOSPHOTOS, offering an alternative to a corporate-owned and bound to established political interests Greek press. AthensLive provides English-language reporting, analysis, and commentary on the situation from Athens and throughout Greece. Independent and crowdfunded, their work will be accountable to their supporters and no one else.
As the members of the AthensLive team say, “totally detached from any mainstream media organization, we aim to make one with a model that lets journalists do excellent work on projects they care about and be compensated fairly for it. Our goal is to build a platform for high quality daily content. More than that, we want to create a hub for independent journalism in downtown Athens. From university students to our crowdfunded European colleagues, AthensLive is part of a wider plan for a collaborative space that could revolutionize the way news is reported in both Greece and abroad. This can only happen if we meet our initial crowdfunding goal”.
We at AnalyzeGreece welcome this new initiative, and wish the team the best of luck, especially as we consider extremely important the creation of truly independent media, with a critical standpoint and timely information, in search of a new model for journalism and expression.
Despina Biri from AnalyzeGreece spoke to some members of the AthensLive team (Yiannis Baboulias, Gerasimos Domenikos, Yiannis Drakoulidis, Elvira Krithari, Tassos Morfis, Sotiris Sideris) about their initiative, among many other things.
You can support the initiative here, offering any amount you wish.

ANALYZEGREECE!

Interview with Y. Baboulias, G. Domenikos Y. Drakoulidis, E.Krithari, T. Morfis, S. Sideris
 
Why did you decide to set up AthensLive? What are you hoping to achieve?
We decided to create AthensLive because as media professionals, working in the mainstream Greek media is a dead end. Additionally, we think that there is a story beyond what is commonly reported that needs to be told both for Greeks and people abroad. Mainstream media haven’t covered it in the best way possible.
 
We hope to build an independent and ad-free platform with unique journalist pieces, data journalism, videos, investigations, and to participate in a European network of independent journalism project. Eventually, we want to build a hub for these projects to collaborate in downtown Athens. We want to show to everyone that being successful is a matter of collective will and community support, rather than corporate will and political support.
 
Our funding model, something familiar in much of the world but novel in Greece, allows us to be accountable to our readers and no one else. Crowdfunded and subscription-sustained, our survival is not dependent on remaining useful as political tools or to corporate interests.
 
While this is not a panacea, they hope that providing a sustainable alternative to traditional news outlets will inspire change in a widely corrupt media landscape. AthensLive can be a model for independence and accountability in a field which lacks both in spades.
 
You describe your initiative as an independent and on-the-ground. What do you mean with these terms?
Being independent means that we do not share any interests with any political or entrepreneurial groups. We are not backed up by any political parties or corporations. Being independent basically means, as we say on our campaign video, that we want to be totally detached from Greece’s media and advertising complex. This kind of involvement that we are avoiding is a huge problem for other outlets because they are sustained by media-shops, ads, and loans from almost bankrupt banks.
 
When we say we are “on-the-ground,” we mean that we are here, we see and document incidents with our own eyes and cameras, and we report directly. This is a quality that foreign press, the only real alternative to Greek mainstream media, cannot match.
 
The combination of “independent” and “on-the-ground” will definitely be a key factor of our success!
 
Who is your team made up of? Do you think it’s important for the AthensLive team to share a common visio
We do share a common vision. We all want to change the way media works in Greece and decided to start AthensLive because of this. We are young and we live in Athens, so we experience the Greek crisis firsthand. Some of us still live with our parents, others have been unemployed or broke for a long time. Most of us used to work for mainstream media under pretty lousy conditions. We question the ethics and quality of Greek journalism and this is why we want to tell the story our own way: independently, professionally, and objectively.
 
This vision unifies the team. Some of us have different point of views, but this raises our creativity. All the same, our common vision inspires common passion. That is what AthensLive is all about. We want to communicate our passion to people and this is why we ask for their support. If we achieve that, to #MakeAthensLive, quality journalism is guaranteed.
 
Αre there any other initiatives and projects, especially abroad, that inspire you and motivated you to create AthensLive?
AthensLive could have never existed without the help from our network of collaborators in Europe, namely Krautreporter in Germany, Direkt36 in Hungary, Zetland in Denmark, Casa Jurnalistului in Romania, and Blank Spot in Sweden. Their work inspires us to be more creative and provides a great model for how to do quality independent journalism.
 
Eric Jarosinski, who goes by the pseudonym NeinQuarterly, is another great source of inspiration and encouragement, replying our DMs and retweeting AthensLive daily. Eric was touring Europe last summer in the midst of the Greek referendum. We spoke with him and he really motivated us to start a crowdfunding campaign in order to back our project. He also brought us into contact with Sebastian Esser from Krautreporter.
 
You recently launched a crowdfunding campaign for AthensLive. Can you tell us a bit more about that?
Crowdfunding is an important part of our model. We want our project to belong to our readers as much as it belongs to us. We think of our readers as people who embrace the effort as members of a new media community and not as simply our readers.
 
Also we are a young and relatively unknown team. Crowdfunding, apart from being the vehicle to get the project running the way we want, is also a way for us to put the work we have been producing this last year to the test. When people back us, we know we have been producing something they want to see more of.
 
In a much broader sense, we believe that only a direct engagement with the public sphere will allow the media to reclaim their role within society.
 
What's your assessment of the situation the Greek media landscape is in currently?
The problem with the Greek media is that they are not based on any financially viable model. They never were. This is no surprise when their primary purpose is to further political or corporate interests, not necessarily profit based on their journalistic efforts in and of themselves. Even if this was not always the case for each outlet, in order to stay afloat, they have become editorially compromised as well. The situation is dire to say the least.
 
A new media law has been in force since last October. How do you think this affects the media landscape, particularly new initiatives such as yours?
After decades of delay, Greece has finally drafted a new law that restricts the licenses of the private television channels, establishes an independent regulatory authority board, along with a number of other things. Still, we don’t know how this law will affect ventures like ours. It is intended to distribute equally state advertising, which is something we aren’t interested in, and deal with issues like copyrights and plagiarism. However we only produce unique, original content so that’s also not a concern.
 
Fundamentally, we believe that it is the internet and labor relations that will change the face of journalism. In Greece, websites' employees, in a plethora of cases, work long shifts without any insurance benefits. If they work as freelancers, they are required to make huge contributions to their pension funds that eventually makes their work unprofitable. The largest press unions don’t represent freelance journalists so it is as if they were invisible.
 
In the new draft bill, the government intends to make a record of online media enterprises, but that isn’t something that will bring groundbreaking change where it counts the most. That’s why we decided to build AthensLive. Our business plan itself illustrates our doubts about the existing paradigm.
 
Despite the ominous financial situation in the country, we want to create a cooperative that provides decent work condition. While Greek websites struggle to thrive based on an exploitative model, we plan to create quality content with a sustainable model that is fundamentally ethical. Our community of supporters and collaborators expect nothing less.

 

The Greek media, the oligarchs and the new Media Law

Ιnterview of  George Pleios to Nikolas Nenedakis and Magdalini Varoucha

Despite reactions from the main opposition parties, the Greek government is expected to deposit its long-awaited draft legislation for the new broadcasting license tenders with the aim of launching the channel licensing competition, after three consecutive unsuccessful meetings of the Conference of Parliament Presidents as regards the TV and radio regulator, ESR. According to the government’s proposal, to be discussed in Parliament on Thursday February 11, 4 private TV licenses are to be issued.
It is the first time such a procedure has been introduced in Greece since the beginning of private television broadcasting, as the country has maintained a regime of temporary licenses for 25 years.
***
In the run-up to the 2015 parliamentary elections (January and Sepetmeber), the vast majority of the Greek media outlets supported the Centre-Right parties, and vehemently campaigned against the eventual victor Syriza. In October 2015, the Greek Parliament approved a bill that with the aim to drastically reform the media landscape in the country. Since then, these the issue of its implementation has risen to the top of the political agenda, and the relevant public debate is continued.
George Pleios, Head of the Department of Communication and Media Studies at the National and Kapodestrian University of Athens and author many books and articles on  the relation between mass media and society, spoke to AnalyzeGreece! about the Greek media oligarchs, the new Media Law and its drawbacks, as well as Greece’s public diplomacy and its institutional aspects.
ANALYZEGREECE!

 
Terms like “media oligarchs” and “triangle of power” are often used in the Greek public debate to describe the relations between politicians, media and business. In addition, you have repeatedly claimed that in the run-up to the January elections, the mainstream Greek media reported negatively about Syriza due to “purely economic interests”. Could you give us your account on the main characteristics of the media sector in Greece and how it could be progressively reformed?
 
Greece is one of those countries in southern Europe where there is a close relationship and interdependence between media and political power – economic as well as political- both on an institutional and an ideological level.  The model describing the relationship between mass media, the state and political elites is that of vested interests as often described in the political discourse and scientific research. This practically means that mass media owners in Greece – also owners of other businesses (eg construction and shipping companies, new technologies and health services firms, etc.) tend to provide political support to political parties, especially those at power or likely to form  a new government. On the other hand, the political parties in Greece tend to provide financial and administrative support to media owners and the companies owned by the so called “oligarchs”, in exchange for their political support. This is done through the assignment of public works (i.e roads and government buildings construction etc.) as well as government advertising, public property management, etc at scandalously profitable terms and in return for political support.
 
These practices have significant economic, cultural and ethical implications, as they make corruption prevail as the dominant example in the public sphere together with the state-controlled and non-competitive entrepreneurship, setting the paradigm of easy enrichment activities, parasitic consumerism etc.
The phenomenon of vested interests between political elites and the media in Greece is not new; it exacerbated after WW II and has culminated early  2000. With the onset of the crisis, in the 2010s, the nature of this relationship has changed. Austerity policies and reductions in public investments limited governments’ ability to funnel large sums of money to media companies or other firms owned by media owners.  As a result, in recent years many media companies have gone bankrupt while others are not sustainable in the free market or able to comply with the law. Not only state resources are limited, but also advertising revenues are in sharp fall as a result of the contraction in consumption due to austerity policies. This practically means that media companies have become even more dependent to state funds today than they have ever been in the past.
 
At the same time, the economic survival of traditional media outlets combined with their support to pro-austerity governments was a vital tool in helping implement these policies. This gave birth to new forms of state support to the media owners during the crisis years:  political elites stopped financing media companies from the state budget and started providing assurances to banks that would grant money to debt-ridden media. This money came from bank recapitalization funds given to Greece through EU support mechanisms (ESF and then ESM), and consequently weighed heavily on the public debt. 
 
As a consequence, parasitic media outlets survived only thanks to the European Support Mechanism and the harsh austerity measures that Greece suffers from. The media has, therefore, every reason to support austerity policies. Content analysis of media programs in recent years has shown that the mainstream media in Greece were supporting pro-austerity measures more enthusiastically than the governments introducing the measures.
 
Summing up, during the crisis years, opportunistic ties between the state and the media:  a) have taken on new dimensions b) have become even stronger and c) have clearly taken sides in support of pro-austerity governments: mainstream media instead of criticizing government policies, advocated the governmental stance, in the strongest possible ways.

After the January 2015 elections, mainstream media changed their attitude toward the anti-austerity government of Syriza-Anel. Yet one should not regard this as a “war” against the new government, on the contrary, this is the role that media should play vis-à-vis every government – only they had not done this before the January elections. One should also note that the months between the January and September parliamentary elections, media attitude toward SYRIZA changed to cautious criticism as media owners were anticipating the new government initiatives regarding media regulation: the so called media “oligarchs” were waiting to see if their interests would be safe guarded. This was more or less the case with the exception of the period before the July 5th referendum:  the mainstream media supported en bloc the YES front and propagated openly against a NO vote, even on Saturday, one day before the referendum, against the law provisions. The stance the mainstream media took during these weeks resembled psychological operations more than reporting. As their campaign failed (the NO campaign got more than 60%), many said that this was also due to people’s reaction to “overdoses” of propaganda by the media.

After the Syriza government signed the new agreement (Memorandum of Understanding) in August 2015 and the party came back to office in September, mainstream media started following a new strategy, namely that of pressure: they constantly called for the government to implement the 3rd Memorandum to the letter. This is because media owners are well aware of the fact that without external financial support, the flow of public money to private media and other media owned companies will simply stop.
 
Greece has recently voted a new Media Law that, according to the government, “brings transparency and democracy and tackles corruption, meeting head-on a Berlusconi-type intertwining interests between politics and business”. You seem to have expressed a more critical view, referring to the pros and cons of the new Law. Could you summarize for Analyze Greece your main points of argument as regards the positive and negative aspects of the new law?

As I have said and written before, after decades of delay, Greece has finally drafted a new law that provides for the licenses of the private television channels. The new law defines the conditions to be respected in order for the private media to broadcast legally and pay for the use of the public frequencies as is the case in the rest of the EU and the western world. At the same time, the new legal framework enhances the control on money laundering through media owned businesses and puts obstacles to overexploitation of employees in the media sector.

Yet the new law has a number of flaws and gaps that could let the interweaving phenomenon go on in a more implicit way than it has been previously the case. The independent authority responsible for the media licenses (Greek National Radio and Television Council -ESR) has not yet been formally convened and it remains unknown when this will happen. Plus, the new law has no sufficient provisions to stop indebted media companies from taking more bank loans. Also –at least in theory- some companies can get a media broadcast license without having the necessary infrastructure, funds and personnel. Some other problematic areas regard the licenses’ procedures for the online TV stations, as well as the qualifications requirements for their personnel -although there is a provision for a minimum number of employees.

However, the biggest weakness of the new media law is that it gives excessive power to the competent minister of State: the decision on the number of media licenses as well as their prices lies in his competence.  This means that the law cannot provide sufficient guarantees that the old or potential new “oligarchs” will not be receiving any favors by the minister of State. Finally, the legal provisions regarding DIGEA (the company-provider of the digital signal for the media program) can be annulled by judgment of the international or the Greek court, if there is a case.
 
Τhe Journalists' Union of the Athens Daily Newspapers (ESIEA) often supports journalists' employment in governmental offices, even within Greece’s diplomatic missions, as a means to tackle unemployment in the media sector. Do you see a possible conflict of interest and what, in your opinion, should a left government’s approach be?

 
The problem with journalists’ exercising parallel functions in the public sector is twofold. On the one hand, the problem is that the relevant employment is unevenly distributed. The situation is problematic, more so if the state (not the market) plays a role in it. Plus, a Left wing party now in power should be even more careful on issues such as equality and social protection policies in the labor market. 

On the other hand, journalists’ parallel employment within the public sector creates major problems concerning media professionalism: handling of time, information sources, influence, confidentiality on state matters etc are some of the problematic areas. Note that the new Law provisions concern journalists employed in the Secretariat General of Information, the Public Television (ERT), as well as the public News Agency (APE-MPE), all three important institutions for the function of the state and the public interest.

 The new Media Law includes a special section referring to Greece’s Public Diplomacy and its organizational aspects, introducing a “National Council for Communication Policy”. Given the widespread stereotypes in the international press on Greece’s “exceptionalism” as the main reason of its economic woes, what do you think that has gone wrong in Greece’s public diplomacy during the past years?

The new Law provisions concerning Greece’s Public Diplomacy are among the positive elements of this initiative and long overdue. Greece lags far behind in this area compared with other European countries and this has become very obvious during the years of the crisis. I believe that some European decisions regarding Greece  could have been somewhat different (ie Germany’s stance)  had the international media and public opinion been more positively disposed towards the Greeks  -if for example narratives like that about Greek laziness, were less widespread.  In my opinion, things could have been different had the international  media focused their criticism more on the political aspects of the country’s pathologies by highlighting, for example, issues like the two party system, New Democracy and PASOK’s clientelistic practices for decades preceding  the crisis.
 
Things could perhaps have been different had the international media also highlighted responsibilities of other western countries for the support they provided to  clientelistic parties in Greece either for political reasons (during the cold war) or for  business purposes after 1989, when Greece was seen as a gate to  Southeastern Europe.
 
In short, we could have avoided serious economic woes if the country had strong public diplomacy policies. Furthermore, especially during 2010 and 2011, Athens could have communicated more effectively the contagion risk of the “Greek crisis” and perhaps influence the stance of the lenders. Instead of taking initiatives to this direction, the previous governments decided to further weaken the pertinent structures of the Greek Embassies (Press and Communication Offices) under the pretext of austerity.

Greece’s traditional political forces in general systematically overlooked the importance of public diplomacy as well as the role of international public opinion makers whom they ought to have properly and timely informed. Instead, in most of the cases, they continued to see the Embassies’ public diplomacy offices and their personnel as another prime area to exercise political favoritism and clientelism.

In light of these, Greece’s public diplomacy should be fully developed and enriched with new contents that go beyond the traditional ancient world glory image. Emphasis should be placed on areas such as promoting the public debate on the crisis ‘social consequences and highlighting the dangers that austerity policies pose for the Europe as a whole and not only Greece, especially if nationalist and racist ideologies keep rising.

George Pleios is Head of the Department of Communication and Media Studies at the National and Kapodestrian University of Athens.
 
  • Published in POLITICS
Subscribe to this RSS feed