18 August 2011
In a spate of recent articles, the Financial Times (FT) has been sharply critical of the actions of the Hungarian government and Prime Minister, Viktor Orban. Kester Eddy, the FT’s Budapest correspondent co-wrote an article on 3 August entitled “Hungary moves to charge former PMs” which was quickly followed a day later by an editorial entitled “Orban warfare”. Both articles expressed a clear opinion that the current Hungarian government was pursuing policies which in some way were anti-democratic, with a particular reference to the so-called threat to prosecute three former prime ministers for some sort of economic crime but also linked to the international outcry resulting from the recent introduction of the Media Law and a new constitution.
Understandably, the Hungarian government hit back, with the Hungarian State Secretary for Communications, Zoltan Kovacs, suggesting that the FT was deliberately misrepresenting the situation and erroneous in its reporting of key facts – a not insignificant charge against such a titan of the international press.
Interestingly enough, this is not the first time that Fidesz and the FT have crossed swords. Some years ago, the newspaper and Fidesz clashed over an FT Supplement on Hungary which was primarily based on the contributions of FT journalists and which some figures in Fidesz believed was little more than a propaganda piece for the then Socialist-Liberal coalition government under the then prime minister, Ferenc Gyurcsany.
Furthermore, the substance of the recent articles in the FT is not so different from numerous other articles in the international media. Only last week, the Economist in London commented on Orban’s ‘antagonistic’ approach to politics. Why then has Fidesz decided to tackle the FT and why now?
It is fair to say that Fidesz have not really forgotten the ‘supplement’ affair and there is a feeling that the main source of news on Hungary for the FT – free-lance journalist Kester Eddy – is lacking somewhat in objectivity.
It is extremely difficult to establish the veracity of this claim and without ‘smoking gun evidence’ the matter should rest there. However, the FT also has a duty to ensure that its staff – free-lance included – are making every effort to report and if appropriate, analyse the key events in their respective areas of operation. On this point alone, I wonder if the readership of the FT and investors in Hungary are being well-served.
A careful study of the reporting of the key political and economic events in Hungary since 2006 suggest that this balance might not always have been maintained – not only as a result of what is said but often by what is left unreported.
The infamous ‘lie speech’ of Gyurscany was only belatedly addressed by the FT and couched in terms of a frank politician being exposed for telling the truth. The FT failed, in my opinion, to clearly report the import of this event, to assess what the falsification of public data meant for the Hungarian people and investors alike and what damage this might have done to politics. If the actions of Prime Minister Viktor Orban today are verging on the anti-democratic – at least as far as the FT 4 August editorial is concerned – then why was this more serious issue in 2006 allowed to pass without similar criticism? It certainly appears to be a case of double standards. Would the FT have been so understanding, if Tony Blair had admitted to lying day and night? Somehow I don’t think so.
Similar key events have also been under-reported in the past. There was little insightful comment or analysis on the public disturbances and the brutality of the police in October 2006. We heard little of the link between Socialist-Liberal public spending and the crash of 2008, when former Prime Minister Gyurcsany was laughed out of the EU for his bizarre proposals for solving the impact of the global crash in Europe. I am still waiting to know what Joaquin Almunia – the then EU Commissioner for Economic and Monetary Affairs – thought of the statistics of Hungary as it sought EU and IMF loans, particularly as the suppliant, Mr Gyurcsany, had been caught admitting that he had lied day and night to not only steal an election but to falsify the accounts. Surely this was worthy of analysis?
Of late, I have also noticed that Kester Eddy and the FT have yet to share with us their views on why the public prosecutor in Budapest is keen on parliament lifting former Prime Minister Gyurcsany’s privilege of immunity from prosecution concerning a land deal which is mired in a corruption scandal. Talking of corruption, when will the FT report on the massive corruption scandals in Hungary involving leading Socialist politicians and public procurement, socialist politicians and corruption in the MOD, socialist politicians and energy contracts and socialist politicians, the national security agency and foreign espionage. This is not to suggest that only Socialist politicians are corrupt. It is simply a fact that a number of high-profile corruption cases in Hungary are currently being put through the courts and are a major feature of Hungarian public life.
Perhaps the FT is correct and the Orban government is tending towards anti-democratic practice. I sincerely hope it continues to bring it to my attention. However, I also would like to know that the standards used to judge others are the same which are used to judge Fidesz. As it stands, I for one get the impression that this is not the case. Perhaps if the FT was to widen its interests in Hungary, seek a wider portfolio of sources and diversify its reportage then Fidesz’s concerns might wither away. Maybe it is time for Kester Eddy to make way for a new generation of journalist in the interests of ensuring the journalist does not become the news!
If you enjoyed this article, you might wish to read this article:
Foreign media criticism of Hungary