The launch of NOVA Television three years ago, in February 1994 was the most successful launch of a commercial television station ever recorded in history.
NOVA currently commands approximately seventy per cent of the Czech viewing audiences. It is an aggressive downmarket broadcaster. In the first six months of 1995, that is in the first half of the second year of its operations, NOVA television recorded after tax profits of 20 million dollars. In 1996, NOVA TV declared and fully paid out to its shareholders a dividend of 12 million dollars. Bear in mind that these profits are being earned in and taken out of country where the average earnings are L225 per month.
The five Czech and Slovak individuals set up a consortium called CET 21, Central European Television for the 21st century. The project of the new commercial television station for the Czech Republic was rather idealistic.
While it was not supposed to be an elitist TV station, it was not to be a downmarket broadcaster, either. Cultural foundations were intended to sponsor programmes which could not be financed commercially.
The station was to be a hybrid - to broadcast high quality news and current affairs, educational and socially committed programmes, as well as entertainment and commercial programmes. It was to be a commercial TV station which also broadcasts a considerable number of sponsored programmes.
The station was to promote the idea of European identity by transmitting programmes obtained from European broadcasters and by focussing on major European personalities. It was to commission original Czech programmes and films. Special emphasis was to be placed on historical continuity. Thus, for instance, there would be a regular programme, analyzing what happened a year ago, ten years ago, fifty years ago. The station would also quickly assess public opinion reactions to current affairs and react to the results in commentaries. There would be special provision for future interactive television, with the help of networked computers.
At off-peak times, CET 21 was to broadcast consumer advisory programmes, Open University programmes and environmental, cultural and regional programmes.
On the basis of this proposal, at the beginning of 1993 the CET 21 group was awarded a nationwide broadcasting licence. It is significant that unlike in Britain, where commercial television licences are sold to the highest bidder by the government, the Czech Council for Radio and Television Broadcasting gave the licence to the CET 21 group for free. The CET 21 group signed a contract, pledging themselves to adhere to 31 strict broadcasting conditions, ensuring the relatively high quality of the broadcasts. The conditions had been prepared according to the British model. Experts from the British Independent Television Commission helped to formulate the conditions.
After they had been awarded the television broadcasting licence, early in 1993, the five Slovak and Czech members of the CET 21 consortium invited a sixth person to join them, one Vladimir Zelezny, who had a good knowledge of English and could deal properly with foreign partners. The six members of CET 21 divided the shares of the new group equally among themselves, each of them receiving 16,67 per cent of the consortium.
Then, Ronald Lauder's firm Central European Media Enterprises, CME, and another interested party, who was to fund the new station, the Czech Savings Bank, said they wanted to buy some shares of CET 21. In 1995, they purchased 2,5 per cent of the television licence from one of the members, Fedor Gal for some one million crowns, twenty-five thousand pounds, some two years after the award of the licence, which - I repeat - had been given to the CET 21 group for free.
Why did CME want to have a small stake in CET 21 at this stage? Dr. Milan Smid of the Faculty of Social Sciences, Charles University, Prague, has noticed that in a document, available on the Internet courtesy of the US Security and Exchange Commission, CME was trying very hard to persuade the American authorities that it was not a PIH, a "passive investment holder" in the Czech Republic. In order to be able to do that, argues Smid, it may be that CME needed to have a stake in the CET 21 consortium.
The new television station, CNTS (Czech Independent Television Station - NOVA ) was registered as a business in July 1993. Its basic capital was 400 million crowns, a mere 10 million pounds. The money was put up by the Czech Savings Bank as a loan. CME owned 66 per cent of shares, the state-owned Czech Savings Bank 22 per cent and the value of the television licence, held by CET 21, awarded for free, was valued as 12 per cent of the shares, i.e. some 1 million pounds. Ronald Lauder did not put any money into the setting up of the new television station, he borrowed it in the Czech Republic.
When the TV station went on the air in February 1994, it became clear that its programming had very little in common with the original project approved by the Council for Radio and Television broadcasting. Nova turned out to be a steamy, tabloid television station, broadcasting primarily not American entertainment series, action films, sex and violence. This diet was instantly successful. The station began attracting between 65 and 70 per cent of the national television audiences. In the first half of 1995 it made twenty million dollars profit. On the basis of these spectacular results, Central European Media Enterprises went to the American stock market for smaller companies NASDAQ in 1995 and raised approximately 168 million dollars for an expansion of their operations in Central and Eastern Europe. There has been a further share issue.
It has now started or is about to start similar commercial TV stations in Rumania, in Slovakia, in Slovenia, in Hungary, in the Ukraine, in Germany and in Poland. The Financial Times of 15th January 1996 estimated that by the year 2000 CME would control an advertising market worth 3 bn dollars in Eastern Europe. By then, it will be unstoppable. At the moment, only the Czech NOVA television is making money, and a lot of it. In 1996, NOVA declared and paid out a dividend of 12 million dollars.
In total, CME has earned 13,5 million dollars in dividends from NOVA in the first two years of its existence, thus recouping all the money CME had originally borrowed from the Czech Savings Bank for the setting up of the station. In the first nine months of 1996 NOVA TV earned 70 million dollars before tax. During the same period, the running costs of the station were 6 million dollars.
At the same time, NOVA introduced some superficially Western methods of television broadcasting: attractive logos, transmissions of live on the spot reports, fast-paced news. The public service Czech TV now imitates these.
The communist regime in former Czechoslovakia carried out a direct, long-term assault on the most fundamental ethical and civilisational values. The negative impact of this assault was cumulative. The strongest and the most destructive effect has been felt in Czech society, in particular since the 1980s. By a rather unfortunate coincidence, NOVA TV has been able to step into the moral and civilisational vacuum, created by the communists, and to reinforce in Czech society the view that there are no moral and civilisational principles of universal validity. Pragmatism and self-interest are supposed to be the only rules, valid in a modern society. This view is obviously destructive, especially in a post-Communist country with undermined civilisational values.
According to information from journalists within NOVA television it has been openly stated at internal editorial meetings that the interests of NOVA television are linked with the interests of the current Czech government coalition. This is why it was decided that NOVA should support the Czech government. The idea of political impartiality has been abandoned by this TV station, which wields a very strong political influence in the Czech Republic, in spite of the fact that CME tells its American investors in its US stock market prospectus that NOVA must adhere to principles of journalistic impartiality and acceptable moral standards.
In the spring of 1996, before the elections, NOVA television gave Vaclav Klaus, the leader of the main Czech political party, the Civic Democratic Party, a regular five-minute weekly slot for free. No similar slot was offered to the leaders of other political parties. In spite of this, the Czech Council for Radio and Television Broadcasting, which is supposed to monitor the Czech broadcasting scene and to control its excesses, failed to act effectively and to stop this infringement of political balance or any other infingements of the licence.
This is what the Czech political weekly Respekt wrote on 16th October 1995:
"[When applying for the broadcasting licence, the CET 21 consortium, i.e. NOVA TV] promised programmes of classical music, educational programmes, consumer programmes, film art, and more than a dozen news and current affairs programmes per day. Everybody knows that NOVA has not fulfilled these promises. Its management argues that the lowbrow diet which NOVA serves the viewing public, is 'in demand'. But by not fulfilling the conditions of the broadcasting licence NOVA has broken the law.'Nothing can be done about this,' says Ms Landova, spokesperson for the Czech Council for Radio and Television Broadcasting. 'Surely you do not suggest that we should take away NOVA's licence. Do you know what that would mean?'"
Even today, the Council is afraid to take away the licence from a station, watched by seventy per cent of the audience, even though the station infringes the broadcasting law due to its lack of impartiality.
Throughout its existence, NOVA television has committed a number of breaches of the terms of the original licence. For instance, according to information from the Council for Radio and TV broadcasting, NOVA is wrongly registered in the Czech Register of Companies as the holder of the broadcasting licence, although the holder of the licence is the CET 21 consortium. This matter is stil being dealt with by Czech courts.
Chief Executive Vladimir Zelezny boasts that his station is the primary opinion former in the Czech Republic. He does not say that only 39 percent of the viewers regard its news and current affairs programmes as trustworthy.
NOVA TV manipulates the so-called news it broadcasts in order to further its own business interests. The director of the station, Vladimir Zelezny, fronts a regular half-hour weekly TV programme on its station where he peddles his wares. Recently, for instance, he has been attacking Czech public service television, for its - as yet unfulfilled request made to the government - that the cost of its TV licence should be raised in line with inflation, after several years when this has not been done.
In the past few weeks I managed to find, with the help of a media specialist from Prague, on the Internet the details of Zelezny's deals with Central European Media Enterprises alerting the Czech Council for Radio and Television Broadcasting to them and publicising them in the Czech Republic.
After the Czech public service television carried a brief report on Zelezny's planned transfer of shares on 16th January 1997, NOVA television broadcast the following report on its main evening news.
Its reporter stood in front of the main television building of Czech public service television, saying: "This is the building which under communism disseminated propaganda about the alleged danger of American imperialists. And now, again, this television station is raising alarm against the influx of American capital". The report was intercut with shots of a senior Czech politician, who said that the influx of American money was very good news indeed for the Czech republic. It transpired later the politician had not been asked about NOVA TV or Central European Media Enterprises in the interview. As I have already mentioned, Ronald Lauder's company has not brought any new American money into the Czech Republic.
Fedor Gal, one of the members of the original six owners of the CET 21 license said to me recently: "The Americans have been incredibly effective in the dealing with the Czech side. They professionally zoomed in on all the mistakes we have ever made due to our inexperience and turned them to their long-term disadvantage. Thus we lost the station."
"I am a psychologist, continued Fedor Gal, and I can testify that from the very inception subtle, systematic, psychological pressure was applied on the Czech parliament and the Council for Radio and Television Broadcasting. Its aim was to secure the abolishment of the original conditions of the CET 21 broadcasting licence one by one."
NOVA television was taken to court by the Council for Radio and Television broadcasting for the infringement of some of the conditions. Before the verdict was reached, Czech parliament passed an updated version of the Broadcasting Act, relaxing the terms of the broadcasting licence. So the judge threw the case out of court. He was not bothered by the fact that he applied the updated Broadcasting Act to the case retrospectively.
The new, extremely liberal Broadcasting Act, in effect as of 1st January 1996, demanded that most conditions of the original licence be abolished, including the most important, Condition 17, which had given the Council for Radio and Television Broadcasting the Right to veto any changes in the ownership of the station. This key condition was abolished by the Council before Christmas 1996.
This has made it possible for CME to lay its hands on most of the remaining shares of the other owners, in a series of strange deals. Why does it matter, since CME already had a majority holding in NOVA? They needed to acquire a majority in CET 21 because its members had the right to return NOVA's broadcasting licence to the Czech government. Also, since NOVA is a licence to print money, CME is interested in owning as many of its shares as possible in order to maximise its profits.
On the 1st of July 1996, Vladimir Zelezny signed agreements with four of the five original members of the CET 21 consortium that he would buy 5,2 per cent of the 12 per cent shares they owned in NOVA TV, thus gaining a 60 per cent majority in CET 21. He obtained a five-year loan of 4,7 million dollars from CME for this. The terms of the loan are that he within five years, Zelezny will give all the new shares over to CME for free, as a repayment of the loan. During the five years of the duration of the loan, Zelezny will give all the dividends due to be paid on these shares, over to CME, by way of interest. Zelezny has also pledged himself to vote these shares as directed by CME.
It is very strange that in the spring of 1996, a new CET 21 firm was incorporated in the Czech Republic, as a public limited company. One of the members of the original CET 21, Peter Krsak, who is trying to prevent Zelezny from gaining an overall majority in CET 21, is not a member of this new group. The purpose of the new CET 21 plc is unclear, since it does not hold NOVA's broadcasting licence, Nevertheless, both the original CET 21 Limited (in Czech: CET 21 sro) and the new CET 21 plc (in Czech: CET 21 as) are included in the loan contract between Zelezny and CME, which enables the director of NOVA to buy the shares of the four of the five original CET 21 members. The CME press officer in London and Vladimir Zelezny in Prague have refused to explain the reason for the existence of CET 21 plc.
In August 1996, CME bought 22 per cent of NOVA shares from the Czech savings bank, at twice the price per share which is due to be paid to the members of the CET 21 consortium.
The contracts about the purchase of shares from CET 21 were signed on 1st July, 1996. The contract about the purchase of shares from the Czech savings bank, at double the price, was signed on 1st August, 1996. The Czech Republic does not have a law punishing insider trading.
CME is very successful on the American stock market. It entered the stock market in 1994 at the price of about 13 dollars per share. Then the share price dropped to 7 dollars per share. Shortly after 20th December 1996, when the Czech Council for Radio and TV broadcasting abolished Condition No. 17 of CNTS Nova' s broadcasting licence, removing the Council' s veto on ownership changes in CET 21, the CME share price on NASDAQ started rising. Now it has reached its climax at 37 dollars per share.
CNTS NOVA is the only company, owned by CME, which is currently operating at a profit. On 20th January, 1997, John Severino, a former director of CME, who on leaving CME in mid-1995 had received a golden handshake of CME shares, then nominally valued at some 4 million dollars, sold 86,600 of these shares, earning some 3,2 million dollars for them. According to Bloomberg, the original American contact for the Slovak-Czech group, Mark Palmer, is now also offering to sell, through is company Democracy Inc. 170 000 of his CME shares. If he manages to sell them at at least 30 dollars per share, he will earn some 5 million dollars.
Some stock market specialists are wary of Central European Media Enterprises. The company is registered among other places in Bermuda and in the Netherlands Antilles. These locations are allegedly, according to some stock market specialists, tax havens.
Nevertheless, since CME is trading on the American stock market, it is subject to very strigent American market regulation. All the above information came into the open and could be published in the Czech Republic in the past few weeks because it is available on the Internet courtesy of the American Exchange and Security Commission, which supervises the American stockmarket.
CME has now acquired more than 93 per cent of all the shares of NOVA Television and have become an extremely powerful force on the Czech political scene. As Petr Stepanek, a deputy head of the Council for Radio and Television Broadcasting has said, it is totally unprecedented in the European context that a foreign company should have a 93 per cent stake in a major nationwide television broadcaster, as has happened in the Czech Republic.
Some Czech politicians and members of the Czech parliament are now afraid to speak up against NOVA, for fear that the television station, which is watched by 70 per cent of the audience and uses unethical journalistic methods, could destroy them.
Czech television is more objective and more high brow than NOVA TV, although it has retained some of its practices from the communist era, primarily inflexibility. Under communism, television in Czechoslovakia was supposed to distract the viewer and deflect his interest from public affairs. This escapist tendency on Czech Public Service television still lasts, and is further enhanced under pressure from NOVA TV.
Czech Public Service television limits the duration of news items on its Main Evening News to one minute and thirty seconds, obviously under the competitive pressure of NOVA Television. Czech TV has no regular programme like British TV' s Newsnight or Panorama, in which it could analyse a single topical political issue in depth for fifteen, thirty or forty minutes. In fact, according to some journalists working for Czech television, government guidelines for Czech TV discourage independent analysis.
One other, Czech owned, commercial TV station, TV PremiŽra has developed from a regional broadcaster. It has had minimal viewing figures and since its launch a couple of years ago it has made serious losses. In January 1997 it has been re-launched under a new name TV Prima.
Czech public service radio and television are the last more or less independent media in the Czech Republic. However, the journalists working for them earn much less than the agressive manipulators from right-wing orientated, often doubtfully privatised daily newspapers.
Probing questioning by journalists are not encouraged anywhere in the Czech Republic. It feels as though the ruling post communist Czech politicians have merely retrenched, reinstating to some of the habits of the pre-1989 past.
It is extremely difficult to ask government ministers firm, searching questions at official press conferences. To do so, you immediately attract the label as an "extremist" or a gutter press journalist in the Czech context. Ministers apply indirect pressure to journalists whom they regard as far too independent. Far too critical journalists are not being invited for television discussions. They are not being invited to informal press conferences with ministers. Many Czech journalists are now very young, often uder 25. This makes it possible for government ministers to treat them as adolescents.
In a recent interview in the Czech internet daily Neviditelny pes, Jan Stern, the editor of Czech television's political debating programme Arena said that top Czech politicians, including premier Vaclav Klaus, refuse to take part in the programme, because in their view it is too "confrontational". Politicians refuse to appear on television to discuss difficult political topics. Whenever Czech television attempts to open up a controversial political theme, powerful right wing daily newspapers accuse it of using gutter press techniques.
Many Czech newspapers are proud to follow the government line. This is primarily because many journalists were bound in with the former communist regime. In order to "assuage" their guilt, they started enthusiastically supporting the post-revolutionary Czech government. They have adopted a pseudo right-wing ideology, which has many surviving communist features. By not properly understanding how the market economy and democracy works in the West, these journalists are discrediting democracy and pluralist capitalism in the eyes of many Czech citizens.
Important Czech commentator, Jiri Hanak, gave a number of reasons recently in Kmit magazine, why many Czech journalists follow uncritically the government line:
First, it is a matter of habit. Most journalists, currently working for Czech newspapers, also worked for them under communism. They are used to communist ways. Under the former regime, they did not need independent thinking, faith in their own judgment or an ability to run risks. Such qualities would have threatened their jobs. These journalists know even now that if they support the 'powers that be', life will be easier.
Second, laziness. It is much easier to produce a servile newpaper than a critical newspaper. The Czechs have always regarded as pleasant to bask in the heat radiated by the powerful.
Third, the younger generation in the Czech Republic has fallen prey to ideology. These market oriented young Stalinists have been given a new God. They worship him using a rite from the communist past. These young people see any criticism of the government as an assault on democracy.
Fourth, there exists, in the Czech Republic today, a group of (pseudo)intellectuals, who had collaborated with the communist regime more intensely than was customary. These people have tried to overcome their past by dramatically switching sides. They want to be as right wing as possible, more pro-government than anyone else, more intolerant than anyone else. The influence of these people in many newspapers is strongly felt. Western owners of Czech newspapers, unacquainted in greater detail with the situation in a post-communist country, have often given a free editorial hand to these individuals in the Czech Republic.
Fifth, pragmatic calculation. After the 1992 elections, which was won by the Civic Democratic Party, the Czech newspapers realised that the Civic Democratic Party was likely to rule the country for eight long years. Thus Czech newspapers switched to the side of the government, as ever. Should the Social Democratic opposition win the forthcoming elections, it is highly likely that Czech newspapers will stick to their long tradition of servility. For fifty years, Czech journalists have obediently served the owner of their papers and the powers that be, no matter what they were like and what they demanded.
V. G. Baleanu, in his recent study Mass Media in the Post Communist East-Central Europe, published by the Conflict Studie Research Centre of the Royal Military Academy in Sandhurst, UK, states that "for the time being the standards of the Czech media are still low, not only because comprehensive programmes able to examine official policies and attitudes in depth are rare, but also becaue the majority of socio-political programmes simply accept the official positions or simply attack them without any kind of analysis."
Perhaps the most successful daily newspaper, which unthinkingly and almost slavishly follows the government line, is Mlad‡ fronta Dnes, with a daily printrun of almost half a million copies. The Mlad‡ fronta daily, which under communism was owned by the Socialist Union of Youth, was after the fall of communism taken over by the members of its own staff. The paper was not offered to Czech citizens for privatization. The doubtful ownership of Mlad‡ fronta Dnes obviously makes its journalists wary of how the write. The paper was later bought out by a French owner and is the property of Rheinisch-Bergische Verlag from the German Rheinland. The journalists working on Mlada Fronta Dnes often exercise self-censorship.
Another newspaper, which until recently followed the government line quite slavishly, is LidovŽ noviny, whose fall from favour with Czech readers has been spectacular. The paper now has a daily printrun of only some 60 000 copies. Quite unprecedentedly, Premier Vaclav Klaus advertises his policies by publishing his own political articles once a week in LidovŽ noviny. A recent change of editor-in-chief made LidovŽ noviny a little more open-minded, but perhaps too late.
Denni Telegraf is partially owned by Vaclav Klaus's Civic Democratic Party and is a mouthpiece of the party. Denni Telegraph is of extremely low quality. The former Communist Party daily Rude pr‡vo, now just Pravo, has become a hugely successful daily newspaper with a printrun of several hundred thousand copies. It publishes independent comment on its pages, but politically the newspaper also toes a relatively simply party political line, siding with the social democratic opposition.
Prace, formerly a trade union daily, has become a joke. Last year, it was purchased by a highly controversial enterpreneur, Vladimir Stehlik, who was irresponsibly given the Poldi Steel works in the town of Kladno, west of Prague, by the Czech Trade and Industry minister Vladimir Dlouhy, as a private asset. Stehl’k is an incompetent manager and he brought the steel works to total ruin. Several thousand people are now about to lose their jobs in Kladno. Using the Prace daily, Stehlik disseminates his views, attacking the Czech government, somewhat like when in Britain, the enterpreneur Tiny Rowland used the Observer newspaper in his struggle against the Al Fayed brothers. Stehlik has hired a 23-year old girl as editor-in-chief to help him further his aims.
A middle of the road, slightly left of Centre newspaper is Slovo. The paper, owned now by the large, state-owned chemical conglomerate Chemapol, and recently re-vamped, is an exception in the Czech Republic in that has been able to follow a surprisingly independent political line. It has become a haven for free-minded journalists and commentators, sacked or forced to leave other daily newspapers, in particular Lidove noviny. Its professional quality is slowly improving.
All Czech daily newspapers have the format of a tabloid. This means that there is not enough space for proper analysis of issues. Most articles are very short. Most coverage must be superficial. There was an attempt to start a large format daily newspaper, Prostor, a few years ago, but the paper failed because the Czech reading public was not ready to accept the large format.
(a) the provision dealing with the protection of journalists' sources of information.The proposed article stipulating that it is a journalist's duty to protect his/her sources of information was removed. No other provision about the protection of journalists' sources was included in the draft law.
(b) the article stating that it is the duty of government officials and civil servants to provide information to the public.
Access to government information is guaranteed in principle by the Czech Bill of Rights, which demands that there should be a law governing this.
Czech premier Vaclav Klaus said: "The government simply does not know how to define the limits of the authorities' duties to inform the public. If it were a legal duty for government officials to provide information, this would mean that everything that is not officially classified would have to be revealed. Such approach is impossible. There are matters which are not classified and yet they should not be published. Your conversation last night with your wife is not classified."
Vadim Petrov, the then head of Klaus's press office, said: "I cannot imagine that the authorities would have to provide information about everything. That would mean that our press office would have to employ a hundred people just for dealing with journalists. That is absurd."
The right-wing political weekly Respekt argued that there is no need for a press law in the Czech Republic. The very concept of a "press law" is dated in the electronic age. By denying journalists the right (or duty) to protect their sources, the government had created "a certain amount of panic" among journalists. However, if a Czech journalists is charged (for instance for "disseminating alarmist news"), he is by law entitled to silence. Admittedly, there is a problem if a journalist is called as a witness. In that case, however, he can always say that he does not remember anything, said Respekt.
Freedom of expression is guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, which forms part of the Czech Constitutional Order, but the guarantee may be limited by the demands of "security of the state, public security, public health and morality". The Czech Republic currently has a law for the protection of official secrets (No.102/71), which was promulgated in 1971, during the time of the harshest neo-Stalinist backlash following the 1968 Warsaw Pact invasion. Article 23 of this Act states that it is the right of individual ministries to issue directives, whereby they themselves (without consulting parliament) define state secrets in their resorts. Since 1989, the law has been updated twice, both times unsatisfactorily.At the moment, the Interior and Defence Ministries regard practically everything in their resorts as state secrets. The Justice Ministry for instance regards proposals for an amnesty, due to be submitted to the President as secret. The Health Ministry regards research as classified information. A new law on state secrets should be submitted to the government in the near future.
Because of the current law's lack of precision, state bureaucracy has been free to define what is in the public interest and what is not.
At the end of 1996, the weekly Respekt pointed out that media freedoms are still being curtailed by a number of laws in the Czech Republic. Like in the final years of the Austrian Empire, in Haäek's Good Soldier Svejk, even today it is still a punishable offence to say in public that our "Head of State is being shitted on by flies". The slandering of and insulting the President of the Czech Republic as well as the Czech Republic itself is a punishable offence. Three people were charged under this law in the Czech Republic in the past two years, but President Havel later pardoned them. It is also a punishable offence to criticise civil servants, judges and policemen in public. The punishment is two years' imprisonment.
It is possible in the Czech Republic for a politician to obtain huge damages from a newspaper which merely prints somebody else's view. Czech government politicians and civil servants are only willing to provide information to journalists if the final text of the article is submitted by the journalist to them for approval. There is no Freedom of Information Act and it is up to the government to decide which information to release to the citizen and the journalist.
Last year, the Respekt weekly submitted a complaint to the Czech Constitutional Court regarding this matter, pointing out that the Agriculture Ministry had refused to provide access to information about farming subsidies in the Czech Republic. Respekt referred to the Czech constitution which stipulates that it is the right of citizens to have access to government information. The Constitutional Court has refused to deal with this matter and passed it on to the Municipal Court for Prague 1. It is expected that the matter will not be dealt with before the summer of 1997.
In spite of the relatively bleak picture of the Czech media scene I believe I can say there is hope for the future. The monolithic vision, which prevailed in many media in the Czech Republic until approximately 1995, started slowly to break up during 1996, when people began to realise that simple ideological solutions, offered by premier Vaclav Klaus and his party, will not save them.
The Internet is a certain counterbalance to the traditional media such as newspapers, radio and television. In the past year or two, most of the paper-printed Czech daily newspapers and some weeklies have became available on the Internet, courtesy of the Prague MediaServer (http/:www.medea.cz). Currently, the newspapers are accessible for free. Later on, their publishers will be given the opportunity to sell advertising, and finally they will be able to decide whether they want to charge Internet readers for access to their newspapers.
There is a large amount of varied information now available from the Czech Republic on the Internet. Since May 1996, Prague writer and journalist Ondrej Neff and his Czech friends and colleagues from around the world have been publishing a rather unusual but in the Czech context fairly successful daily electronic newspaper, with a somewhat surrealist name "Neviditelny pes" (The Invisible Dog). Over a few months, the periodical has developed into an interesting, independent and sometimes investigative political and social publication. The Invisible Dog newspaper is daily accessed by some 3000 readers.
While the popularity of the Internet in the Czech Republic came later than in countries like Britain or the United States, in 1996 the number of Czech-speaking Internet users started rising dramatically. The number of accesses to the above-mentioned Prague MediaServer rose sixteen times during 1996. In January 1996, the MediaServer recorded some 150 000 accesses per month, in November 1996 it recorded almost 2,5 million accesses.
Most Internet users access the Net from work in the Czech Republic. One third of the Czech Internet users belong to middle and higher management, one third are university students and one third are computer specialists. Czech Internet users are between 20 and 40 years old. Seven times more Czech men than women access the Internet.
Glasgow, 23rd January, 1997