Freedom of expression and freedom of the media

Participants in this session pointed out that, regrettably, Greece had fallen a long way down the Reporters Without Borders Index in the past years, and was now last on the EU list. They considered that the issue was not so much that journalists were not free, as there was overall good legal protection of freedom of expression. Challenges rather lay in a combination of state and major business capture of media, authorities’ reluctance to be transparent, and self-censorship in the media sector.

Participants explained that there was a trend towards concentration of traditional media outlets. Major media belonged to businesspeople: for example, a large majority of private TV channels were owned by huge ship-owners. The restructuring of the media sector following the various socioeconomic crises and the digital transformation had led to a great number of media professionals being laid off. In parallel, small online media had proliferated, reaching a wide readership based on a precarious economic model in which a few staff were employed on fairly low wages under less favourable work conditions. Small independent media outlets could not count on regular profitable business advertisements as a source of sustainable and independent revenue and were looking for alternative models such as grants from foundations supporting investigative journalism, subscription-based models, or a non-profit status. Concerning transparency of ownership, the Greek authorities explained that a new law required all media to publish information on this. The socioeconomic conditions of journalists were considered to be average if compared to the general economic situation of the country, with journalists generally receiving a salary slightly above the minimum wage. However, participants regretted that working conditions had severely deteriorated since the austerity measures had been introduced, with the sector being one of the first to experience the labour laws put in place around the bailout. In that context, many complained that collective bargaining was non-existent and that media workers were at the mercy of cancellable media contracts. Many of the younger generation of journalists could only find employment opportunities in "news rooms", where they mostly reformatted existing information, instead of working in the area of investigative journalism. Participants explained how self-censorship was driven by invisible factors. Most journalists would not address issues seen as critical to the authorities, and there was a polarising tendency in public debates to associate journalists with one or other side of official narratives. For example, it was particularly difficult to report on alleged illegal pushbacks of migrants at the Greek borders without risking being portrayed as an agent of Turkey, and there were cases of journalist arrests for pictures taken at the border. Representatives of recognised international daily newspapers were also accused of spreading fake news for having reported on pushbacks. Participants considered that the authorities had considerable influence over public TV and radio and that instructions on how to treat any matters involving them were sometimes circulated. Journalists in these public media outlets would tend to be particularly challenging of representatives of the opposition during interviews. News agencies tended not to question the official government narratives on a number of domains.

Participants felt that pressure could sometimes be more explicit, giving the example of an investigating journalist who risked going to prison for having used leaks to report on alleged bribery involving the pharmaceutical company Novartis. Concerning this file, the Greek authorities asserted that the journalist had been investigated for the alleged use of classified information and possible extortion of information without any evidence, not for having written articles. 5 Participants also regretted the absence of a breakthrough in the investigation of the assassination of investigative journalist Giorgos Karaivaz in 2021. The Greek authorities indicated that this case was still under investigation but no link had been established with political or public affairs. More generally, they mentioned their work on developing initiatives on the safety of journalists, which they aimed to align with best practices. Participants also warned against the development of surveillance of journalists. Reference was made to one specific case of a journalist who had allegedly been hacked with spyware software, after having been wiretapped by the national secret services. They believed that the Greek authorities had issued a great number of surveillance decrees on state security grounds, and that there was no reason why the use of spyware would remain an isolated case. The Greek authorities explained that they had provided several public justifications of the surveillance in question, which represented their official position. Three investigations were under way concerning the possible involvement of national services in wiretapping of journalists – by the National Transparency Agency, the Authority for Communication Security and Privacy, and the Public Prosecutor.

A participant gave an example of what was considered to be authorities’ general reluctance to provide access to information – in particular concerning sensitive issues such as migration or the arms trade – or to answer critical questions in the framework of journalist investigations. Information access requests concerning the obscure criteria for the allocation of EUR 20 million by the authorities to some "friendly" media outlets to broadcast public health messages during COVID had remained mostly unanswered. Without such information, and in the absence of any judicial investigation into the matter, it had been impossible for the investigative journalists behind the requests to clarify why some outlets received much more than others. The only possibility left for journalists to obtain the information had been to go to court, where they had won their case. Participants took note with extreme caution of the 2021 law against fake news. While they acknowledged the need to address the phenomenon following its rise during the COVID period, they feared that excessively vague criteria on news "provoking fear or anxiety for citizens" could lead to abusive and unacceptable implementation.