Submitted and reported by Vasiliki Michopoulou (“Vaso”) at EHFG 2013
The austerity has caused huge economical problems to Greek journalists also. More than half of them are officially unemployed but the number is hard to discover because it increases every day. Thousands of jobs have been lost and dozens of outlets have been shut down, denying newsrooms of some of its most veteran and talented professionals.
Five thousand are registered with the Athens Union of Print Journalists (ESYEA) but others can no longer afford to join. Salaries are low and have recently been cut by about 15%. Journalists, among the country’s poorest-paid professions, earn an average €500-€600 a month (without a pension or social security), out of which social security has to be paid for (€230).
And the Greek media isn’t just hurting in terms of raw numbers – it’s also taken hits to its most valued asset: credibility. A huge crisis of confidence has arisen between Greeks and their media. Journalists have big problems doing their job each day but the main concern is how the media market is organised.
From that point of view, society feels media companies lack independence of vested interests, and respond to ideological and economic clientlism
Media groups are poorly funded, artificially supported and in danger of collapsing or even disappearing.
Salaries are low and have recently been cut by about 15%”, Journalists are seen as delinquents or over-privileged, and by some as the symbol of an evil power that has betrayed the country, at least by omission.
The government announced a major shut down of ERT on 11 June 2013. The goverment said ERT had for a long time been a “very costly” operation for the government and added that it would be made “non-partisan” and “better quality,” with a guaranteed profit of some millions. That has not happened yet.
Some media groups are planning to negotiate bankruptcy (known as the article 99 process) and so halt payments, which would protect them from their creditors. It would also allow media owners to skip paying salary arrears and rehire journalists on new terms, outside collective labour agreements:
Journalists keep stressing that they have no business doing “public relations” work for political parties or media owners. In Greece we are surrounded by ideas such as political opportunism, bullying, corruption, favoritism and individualism. Unfortunately we are lacking a strong civil society that could put the brakes on government arbitrariness and manipulation.
Brussels, July 1st 2013
OPEN LETTER
To the President of the Russian Federation, V.V. Putin
To the President of the Government of the Russian Federation, D.A. Medvedev
To the President of the Parliament of the Russian Federation (Duma), S.E. Naryshkin
To the President of the Russian Academy of sciences, V.E. Fortov
The International Union of Academies is deeply concerned at the news of plans to reshape the Russian Academy of Sciences. The Russian Academy of Sciences has been the most important research institution in Russia during almost 300 years of its history, and was one of the founding institutions of our Union in 1919. It incorporated the most reputed Russian scholars, and many prominent foreign scholars considered it an honour to be elected among its foreign members. It has always been highly regarded all over the world as a center of innovative research. The proposed reforms threaten to weaken the Russian Academy of Sciences as a centre of basic research and are likely to diminish the high position of Russian science and scholarship.
The proposal to transfer the administrative responsibility of scientific research from scholars to state officials goes against the practice used in the rest of the world and may cause considerable harm to scientific and scholarly researche in Russia. No academy of science can function properly without a certain amount of freedom from outside pressure and complete autonomy. No successful reform in the field of research can be applied without taking into the account the opinion of the scholarly community involved.
The International Union of Academies wishes to express its support for the Russian Academy of sciences. It is to be hoped that the current proposals will be reconsidered.
Sincerely yours,
Prof. Øivind ANDERSEN, President (The Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters)
Prof. Josep GUITART I DURAN, Vice-president (Institute of Catalan Studies, Spain)
Prof. Hervé HASQUIN, General Secretary (Royal Academy of Belgium)
Prof. Madeline CAVINESS, Honorary President (American Council of Learned Societies)
Prof. Agostino PARAVICINI BAGLIANI, Honorary President (Swiss Academy of Humanities and Social Sciences)
Prof. Shaul SHAKED, Honorary President (Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities)
Prof. Jiři BENEŠ, Board Member (Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic)
Prof. Askold IVANTCHIK, Board Member (Russian Academy of Sciences)
Prof. Jean-Pierre MAHÉ, Board Member (Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, France)
Prof. Elzbieta WITKOWSKA-ZAREMBA, Board Member (Polish Academy of Sciences)
Prof. François DE CALLATAŸ, Board Member (Royal Academy of Belgium)
Moscow, July 2, 2013. Public protests against plans to ruin Russian academy of sciences.
See also the letters of support sent by scientists from all over the world:
The Science Debate is on. The German Association of Science Writers TELI has launched a new platform of unique exchange at the Annual Reunion of Science Journalists “Wissenswerte” in Bremen. It shall link science and researchers, political and economical leaders with the Civil Society. The initiators are worried that a lot of research is not being reported properly, especially its impact on the society. The German Science Debate shall resolve this impasse and open new avenues of dialogue.
The German Science Debate rests on three major columns: the energy challenge and how to create sustainable and environmentally safe sources, health and nutrition, demography and old age. The initiators believe that these are the main issues in the coming decades, closely interwoven with science, technology and research. If these fields affect the prosperity and well-being of the majority of the population, then the society should have a word as to the purposes and outcome of this research. These means of participation are also crucial for the preservation and enhancement of democracy.
The German Science Debate is zeroing in on current science news and trends, raising pros and cons, acquiring statements and contributions of key institutions and leaders involved in these topics and, finally, striving for public face-to-face debates. Ultimately, this dialogue shall contribute to the German election campaign, culminating in September 2013 in the election of a new chancelor and federal representatives. The first science debate was initiated already in 2009. It involved scientific leaders, politicians and members of the civil society. At the end, it could only conclude that science and technology did not play a role during the election campaign. They were hardly mentioned.
One year later, TELI and EUSJAjointy presented the science debate for the first time on the European level. At ESOF Turin 2010, an international panel assessed its potential and pointed out its innovative elements. In some countries such as Estonia a science debate has been held since then. At the World Conference 2013 in Helsinki, EUSJA President em. Hanns-J. Neubert will introduce the science debate as a world-wide vehicle to bridge science and the civil society. Especially the European Union seems to be open to utilize this new tool of citizens’ participation. Science journalists are the natural moderators of these dialogues. They are not only essential for our future, but also create new means of employment.
Once upon a time there was a socialist system which tried to treat all citizens equally. Health care was guaranteed, but it stayed on an overall low level and could not compete with capitalism. This system encouraged consumption and growth, without any strings attached. While the first one collapsed and is history by now, the latter one is also stumbling and receives from world economists such as former German chancelor Helmut Schmidt the most inferior grades. He called it a beast. While banks and the monetary system are still unleashed and the European Union is falling in agony, voices for a third way between socialism and capitalism arise.
In concrete terms, no country spends more money on health care than the United States, but the majority of the population does not receive a fair share. Europe might be on the same track, as signs indicate. The continent’s top budget administrators met in the charming Austrian resort town Gastein (see also “Health Journalists: Go to Gastein”). In numerous sessions they virtually banged their heads against the wall how to get out of the vicious circle of decreasing funds and increasing numbers of patients.
Sin taxes or motivation to kick the habit? The EU launched a campaign to quit smoking (c) EU
Will higher sin taxes help, for example for cigarettes – because smokers are a heavy burden for the health system? Can a fast food chain like McDonald’s be pulled into an all-out effort to educate young people on obesity prevention strategies? Tests show that a picture of a carrot on the quarter pounder box seduces young customers to eat more vegetables. Or is the most powerful leverage Hollywood? The extremely successful movie “Untouchable” has promoted all over the world discussion about the inclusion of the handicapped. These examples, at least, are heartening and give hope that the bumpy US road is still far ahead.
The blockbuster movie “Untouchable”: It triggered a debate on how to integrate handicapped people
One participant of the conference, the newly elected chairman of the European Health Forum Gastein, offered another remedy. “Health literacy is the corner stone”, he pronounced in a special session. This means to “empower citizens to take control over their own lives”, said Helmut Brand, expert for public health and professor at Maastricht University. He cooperates closely with patients’ groups and is very well aware of the fact that once people assume responsibility for themselves fare better in life, stay healthier and recover faster from ailments, Brand stated in an EUSJA press conference.
It was exactly this philosophy, meanwhile a well accepted formula, which created some 20 years ago a broad movement which gave birth to non-government organizations or NGOs. They have changed the world, kicked off the environmental movement, human rights campaigns and introduced more democracy and participation in community affairs. Independent NGOs, fueled by citizens’ concerns, are all over public life and contribute to something we might phrase “The Third Way”. So what do patients’ groups and self help organizations achieve in the public health sector?
Magazine of German anxiety self help umbrella DASH: Patients’ groups help to cut down the soaring costs of Europe’s health system
There are numerous best practices throughout Europe, but one striking case has written history. Some 25 years ago, more and more people became aware of mental health issues, specifically their own depressions and anxieties, among others produced by the ever increasing pace of economy and work pressure. Today the burnout syndrome is all over the media and has become a mainstream topic. In those days however, it was a taboo to speak openly about one’s psychological condition, which many times only aggravated it and made everything worse. So the persons concerned went to look for a therapy, which sometimes worked, but many times did not produce the desired results. At the end, the patients ended up taking a lot of medication, just to make their suffering bearable and to function more or less at work.
Fortunately these were the times of change, the environmental and green movement made people aware of their own power and possibilities, far beyond of what the state and established institutions were able to provide. If psychologically unstable people pooled their own resources and knowledge, they could go places. That did not necessarily replace professional treatment and assistance, but eased significantly their situation.
These were the background and the circumstances which made three young people in Munich move into action. They founded the first self help group for patients who suffered from anxiety. The novelty was that the groups were not run by professionals but by people, who had experienced this condition which means: They were the experts. In order to empower them to run patient groups they were trained in Ruth Cohen’s theme-centered interaction TCI.
Founders of the self help movement and patients’ group in Munich: Gerhard Schick (left), Heiner Keupp (right), Fritz Letsch (in the back) (c) Goede
Simultaneously, some other people, more broad-based in their intentions, banded together and founded an entire self help center. Today it accommodates more than one hundred groups, which deal with a whole scope of health disorders. At the 20th anniversary of this institution, the founders recorded the history. Interestingly but not overly surprising, for Bavaria’s conservative party they were sort of rabble-rousers. They violated the rule that the important issues were tackled on the top levels of political and administrative circles. Solutions were handed down to the citizens. Also the medical field apparently did not tolerate any exceptions form this principle. At that time, only the social democrats and the green party, which had started as grassroots movements themselves and worked their way from the bottom up, supported the new health initiatives.
Munich’s anxiety self help group MASH has been highly successful in assisting people with psychological disorders. Studies have found that the organization has helped a large majority of its clients to overcome the constraints, re-integrate into work, and lead a healthy, wealthy and happy life again, cutting down on medication as well as psychiatric treatment, thus relieving substantially the health system. MASH was a role model for many other initiatives which sprung up all over Germany and beyond. The organization produces a comprehensive magazine which addresses regularly all different kinds of anxiety and how sufferers deal with them. Last but not least MASH has contributed to new funding models of self help groups. German health insurances channel a percentage of their income into financing these voluntary associations.
Health expert Helmut Brand and his press officer Birgit Kofler: He explores new avenues of sustainability (c) Goede
In short, this is the historical background of professor Brand’s health literacy initiative. In the 3rd millennium, the civil society has become a viable part of society. This rests not only on politics, economy and science, but increasingly on volunteering and citizens’ initiatives, which pave new participatory and sustainable ways. While many individual goverments of the European 27 still lag behind and are far away from compliance, the European government in Brussels has firmly understood this eminent paradigm shift and support it, especially in the medical field.
Science journalists are also grassroots people who are committed to work independently and stay away from the established powers if they want to live up to their truth-finding mission. In other words, the new health movement and modern science journalists are twins.
While there is a lot of big-time research going on, which costs billions of Euros, our profession likes to act as „descendents of Prometheus, taking the fire from the scientific olympus and bring it down to the people“. This is a quote from Dorothy Nelkin’s book „Selling Science“.
For example, the dream of nuclear fusion has been pursued for 60 years, the scientific promise to harvest unbounded energy. But we are still very far away to put this vision into reality, whereas research on Low Energy Nuclear Reactions has been banned by the scientific establishment, without noticeable opposition.
Many science and technical journalists have always sided with the scientific, economic and political powers: with the car manufacturers, who could not imagine until recently that automobiles run on other than fossil fuels; they became NASA’s loudspeakers and ignored the lamentable state of the Space Shuttle, which eventually led to the shocking accident; and they believed in the tobacco industry, which did not get tired to repeat: Smoking does not harm your health, although the adverse effects had already been known in the 1950’s.
No lessons were learned from history after major research organisations in Nazi-Germany declared blatant racism as a scientific truth and the media just went along with this, not only in Germany. Political ideology applied to science and reinforced by science journalists caused famines in Soviet Russia and left millions dead.
Last century’s history teaches us that research is always about power, political and economic strings, the abyss of financing and money as well as the often well hidden self-interest and ambitions of researchers. Science in theory is about truth, but in reality about power. These are the stakes and major stakeholder, however one is missing.
When on July 4, 2012 CERN revealed its breakthrough, this was also a victory for Europe’s taxpayers and citizens who have largely financed the collider. But do they really understand what’s going on with the God particle, why research is necessary. Has anyone asked the principal stakeholder?
Citizens have not raised their voice so far, but perhaps German clergymen speak up for them. They are opposing the god particle, the term and probably also the research, because it demystifies God. They claim that another field of research deserves much more attention: climate change, waste of energy, the depletion of natural resources!
We will need a new planet by 2030, if we don’t improve our act and shape up, say these catholics and raise the question: Should some of the moneys used for basic research, fusion and particle physics not be invested into the sustainability of our earth? Which also would suggest that tax payers are consulted as to the priorities of research moneys.
Until 1789 Europe was ruled by the “Ancien Regime”. Does it survive in science and science journalism, as the Prometheus quote indicates? We have the power to change this. Rather than cheerleaders, science journalists should be critical investigators who flip the coin and look behind it. The German Association of Science Writers TELI wants to facilitate this mission and proposes a new platform for science journalists.
The “Sci Journs House of Debate” shall stimulate scientific debate in society and bridge the gap between researchers, politicians and citizens. It zeros in on major scientific issues of the 21. century and triggers them with provocative questions: Electricity as expensive as fuel? Food stamps for fish and meat? Prostheses and major surgery only until 60?
Science must become part of the mainstream society. This has succeeded once research results are being debated as passionately as soccer scores. Only this will provide the missing checks and balances which keep the other stakeholders of science under control.
This was a contribution to ESOF Dublin 2012, a panel discussion with the title above, moderated by Brian Trench, Irish Science & Technology Journalists Association ISTJA. On the panel were Elisabetta Tola, Formicablu – Italy, and Vesa Niinikangas, president of the World Federation of Science Journalists – Canada//Finland
The austerity has caused huge economical problems to Greek journalists also. More than half of them are officially unemployed but the number is hard to discover because it increases every day. Thousands of jobs have been lost and dozens of outlets have been shut down, denying newsrooms of some of its most veteran and talented professionals.
