Cutting edge: the Romanian press and Roma 1990-1994

07 December 1999

Cristina Hanganu¹

In September 1993, villagers in the town of Hădăreni, Romania, reacting to the killing of a non-Romani man by a Rom, set fire to a house into which three Romani men had fled, and beat to death two men as they tried to escape. The third man was burned alive in the house. Villagers then attacked and burned a number of houses in the Romani community and expelled the entire Romani population of Hădăreni². The treatment of the Hădăreni pogrom by the Romanian press, as well as of media treatment of several other events of importance in Romania during the period, reveals much about the Romani-Romanian dynamic³, as well as about the role of the media as an instrument in that dynamic⁴.

From the outset, the guilt of the Roma in provoking the violence in Hădăreni was presumed, as indicated by the title of one article which appeared in a mainstream daily on September 22, 1993: "Over 500 Romanians and Hungarians Set Fire to Roma Houses and Lynched the Criminal⁵". The press introduced the event using the following phrasing: "The killing without any reason of Craciun Cheţan (24 years), married, with a four month old child by two Gypsies⁶". The relevance of the marital status of the killed Romanian was unclear, as was the fact that he had a child. Also, how could the reporter be sure before any judicial procedure that the two persons suspected and murdered by the mob were the killers of Cheţan? How did he know that the crime had no motive? Also, the fact that the Roma killed in Hădăreni were unemployed was harped upon by the press, while the Romanian victim is described as being a worker: "The burning of the Roma houses in Hădăreni was triggered by the killing of a 25-year-old worker, Craciun Cheţan by Lupian Rapa Lacatus, a 20-year-old unemployed Rom⁷". All these details were employed in order to reinforce the sympathy of the reader with the killed Romanian and his family rather than with the killed or expelled Roma.

Another strategy employed while reporting on the Hădăreni conflict was that of cryptically pointing the reader in the direction of reaching a biassed conclusion by appealing to folk wisdom or shared popular knowledge⁸. For instance, aggressive comments by one of the Romanian peasants were presented in one article, followed by the comment: 'He is not a bad guy, but⁹..." The hesitation of the reporter in this case was a way of winning the readers' confidence and compassion at the same time. The author seems to imply that the speaker is not a bad guy but circumstances had made him angry.

The widow of Mr Cheţan was given a tone of pure pathos: "Child, look at your father, look at him for the last time¹⁰ ..." Mr Cheţan was described to fit the stereotype of the young, strong, good peasant, and he was presented as married, honest, modest, hard-working, and held in high esteem by the community.

Articles also resorted to pure narrative cliché: "We meet the village's gravedigger. He just finished digging the grave (of the Romanian killed by the Gypsies)¹¹". In this case, as part of a news story, there is a melodramatic focus on the gravedigger. In other instances, journalists described the geography of the conflict by resorting to cheap melodrama. For example, the pub, the burnt house and the church are all set in the same area of Hădăreni, so one journalist wrote, "in this spot the place of murder, the place of revenge and the place of forgiveness coexist¹²!"

One journalist highlighted the fact that all of the villagers mourned the young Romanian man killed in the conflict and that the whole village took part at his burial, which was described in detail. The same journalist only briefly mentioned that the Roma lynched in the same conflict would be buried in their home village¹³. The ethnic affiliation was mentioned in connection with the Roma, while the Romanian was called either by his name or "the young man".

Actors were additionally identified and categorised through language use and style of speech. In most cases, Romanians were quoted (improbably) speaking in grammatically correct Romanian. Roma were presented as speaking aggressively, vulgarly or incoherently. Romani speech was even reported in one article as having the "cadence of a machine-gun¹⁴".

Articles also tended to point the reader towards a purported Romani arrogance or double-standard, such as the Rom quoted as pleading, "My children are staying under the open sky ... and look! - showing a bunch of bank notes - there is no place where I can buy them something to eat¹⁵!" The article played on perceptions of Roma as simultaneously arrogant and stupid.

Many of the articles appearing in the Romanian press about the pogrom mentioned that the houses burnt down by the Romanian and Hungarian communities belonged to the "bad" Roma and that a few houses of the "good" Roma had been spared, implying that the mobs were cold, dispassionate, and simply administering justice. A study conducted several months later by a weekly publication revealed that, in fact, as one of the "good" Romani women said: "They wanted to set on fire our house too, but our [non-Romani] neighbour begged the people to go away and leave us alone¹⁶".

The Hădăreni Roma were, as a group, portrayed as a bunch of criminals: "Despite the fact that they did not work, the local Gypsies had a prosperous situation¹⁷" This assertion fell on fertile ground, since often when a felony allegedly committed by a Rom is reported in the press, the author reports the ethnicity of the suspect. Ethnicity of suspects is not usually mentioned when it comes to members of the majority. Journalistic practice in Romania perpetuates the widely-held view of Roma as unemployed criminals who make a living by stealing or tricking people. One headline, from slightly before the Hădăreni pogrom, for example, informed readers, "Roma immigrants in Germany have discovered a new method of extorting money from the natives¹⁸."

Reporting on Hădăreni fell against a wider backdrop of contemptuous reporting on Roma. Roma are often scorned in newspaper articles, for example, for failing to have only one leader. Journalists report on Romani politics by employing sarcasm and/or embellishing fabulous details: "In a pub in Strehaia, the National Conference of the Party of Nomadic Roma took place¹⁹" and its president "was loaded with gold²⁰". Meanwhile, when reporting on achievements of Romani leaders, journalists often use thinly veiled sarcasm: "the public lost the opportunity to be informed that the winner of the 'Dr Bruno Kreisky' prize for 1993 is the Romani sociologist Nicolae Gheorghe²¹."

One of the most revealing events in the Romanian press with respect to Roma took place in summer 1994. After the Romanian soccer team won a match with the Argentinians in a World Cup match in July 1994, Michael Hanult, a journalist from Agence France Presse, compared the virtuosity of the Romanian football team positively with a Romani folk music band²². News of this report reached Romania via the omanian national television station. In the following day's newspapers, concern was expressed regarding the incident. A debate in the Romanian press subsequently erupted and lasted from July 5 until September 22, and comprised at least fifteen articles. With the exception of on editorial in Evenimentul Zilei²³, all of the articles had the same position in the matter: national honour was wounded by being compared to Roma. A simple comparison with a Romani folk band - not a very inspired one, but still a positive comparison - triggered the wounded pride of the Romanians. The comparison touched upon a deeply lodged fear of Romanians that they might be taken for a nation of Gypsies, as a foreigner might not distinguish between Rom and Romanian.

The media, racism, and the post-Ceauşescu Romanian public

Although there are extremist papers which certainly do engage in the practice, the mainstream Romanian press, especially the large national dailies, does not generally directly incite racism or engage in extreme forms of racist slur. The media does, however, reflect the powerfully negative attitudes of Romanian society toward Roma²⁴. Additionally, between 1990 and 1994, the media tried to overcome the mistrust of the public by appealing to popular anti-Romani sentiment.

As Trond Gilberg²⁵ has shown, during the Ceauşescu regime, information was considered to be more trustworthy if it was disseminated by a source considered reliable - that is, a source outside the media. In a society in which access to information other than that of heavily censored official sources was blocked, information circulated via informal channels and these were considered to be the most reliable; they were free from the direct control of the regime. This phenomenon has deep historic roots that go back before the communist era in Romanian history.

After 1989, this legacy continued to play an important role in Romanian society. A study by the Romanian Institute for Public Opinion Polls conducted in 1993 showed that 66% of respondents acquired information on the political, social and cultural life of the country from secondary sources such as friends, acquaintances, etc.²⁶ After 1989, ethnicity "broke out" in Romania, as in other countries of the region. Despite the increased credibility the Romanian media acquired by being somewhat freed from its Ceauşescu-era bindings, there was still a perceived need for the media to consolidate its position. In a society rapidly becoming more and more stratified, the media needed a topic that could bridge differences surfacing between different groups, and ethnicity played this role admirably. In a deep crisis threatening all of the norms and values of Romanian society, Roma were made into scapegoats²⁷. In an attempt to restore lost credibility as a primary source of information, the Romanian media focused a sharp negative light on Roma.

Other factors were also at play. For example, it was often deemed necessary to divert attention from failed policies in other fields. Also, the education journalists received during the communist period led to partisanship and opinionated reporting for pedagogical purposes. There was, additionally, a lack of journalistic ethics, a low level of professionalism, lack of experience in independent and objective journalism and a strong inclination towards self-censorship. Reporting on ethnic issues often proceeded from an unwillingness to damage the country's image abroad and ethnic issues were therefore downplayed or misrepresented. There was a generalised aversion to anybody different from the society at large, since during the old regime difference was perceived as threatening. In the final analysis, the Romanian media played an important role in perpetuating old images and reawakening the embedded fears of the majority population towards Roma.

Endnotes:

1. Cristina Hanganu was born in Bucharest, Romania. She holds a Bachelor degree in Journalism and Communication Sciences from the Bucharest University and a Masters degree in Political Science from the Central European University in Budapest. She currently manages the Public Relations Department of a major telecommunications operator in Romania.
2. For details on the pogrom in Hădăreni and subsequent legal developments in the case, see the ERRC country report Sudden Rage at Dawn: Violence against Roma in Romania, as well as the "Legal Defence" section of Roma Rights, Spring 1998.
3. According to the 1992 census, the last one conducted in Romania, out of a total population of 22,760,449, the Romani population represented 409,723 or approximately 1.8%. According to the same census, there were 1,620,199 Hungarians in Romania in 1992, making them the largest minority at 7.1% of the population. Some sources, however, claim that there are over 2,000,000 Roma in Romania.
4. This paper deals with the Romanian press from October 1990 to July 1994 and is limited to the top five daily newspapers with nationwide distribution in Romania: Evenimentul Zilei, Adevărul, România Liberă, Vocea României and Cronica Română. These papers reflect the main characteristics of the Romanian media as a whole and have a rather wide impact, although not as significant as that of television and radio.
5. Evenimentul Zilei, September 23, 1993, "La Hădăreni situatia ramine exploziva". The newspapers surveyed for this article had various political orientations during the period under review. Vocea României was at the time the government newspaper (it has since ceased to exist). Evenimentul Zilei was comparatively objective but was also somewhat scandal-mongering. Adevârul supported the then-government party although it declared itself independent, while România Liberâ supported the Democratic Convention, the opposition block, and has a monarchist orientation. Cronica Română was an independent newspaper, but leaned in favour of the government. At the time, the government was led by the Party of Social Democracy in Romania, successor to the Communist party overthrown during the 1989 revolution. It won the 1990 elections and was in power until 1996. The opposition was represented by the Democratic Convention, a convention gathering together liberal an right wing parties and politcal groups.
6. Evenimentul Zilei, September 23, 1993, "La Hădăreni situatia ramine exploziva".
7. Cronica Romana, September 22, 1993, "La Cheţani - Mures, Doi romi omoriti in bataie de un sat intreg".
8. The power of the folk stereotyping of Roma should not be underestimated. Today parents still scare children by saying: "if you do not behave yourself, the Gypsies will take you away" or "I will sell you to the Gypsies". Other Romanian sayings include "the Gypsy is not a man as the reed is not a tree" and "the Gypsy is still a Gypsy even on Easter".
9. Romania Literara, #46, November 24-30, 1993, "... lapte proaspat aburind".
10. Evenimentul Zilei, September 23,1993, "La Hădăreni situatia ramine exploziva".
11. Romania Literara, #46, November 24-30, 1993, "... lapte proaspat aburind".
12. Romania Literara, #46, November 24-30, 1993, "... lapte proaspat aburind".
13. Evenimentul Zilei, September 24, 1993 - "Intr-o atmosfera de jale, la Hădăreni, A avut loc inmormintarea tinarului ucis de ţigani".
14. România Libera, March 3, 1991, "Din nou conflicte etnice cu romii".
15. Adevărul, September 21, 1993, "Hădăreni- nici o schimbare".
16. Dilema, no. 46, "Cine considera pe cine integrat sau cum ne manipuleaza televiziunea".
17. Evenimentul Zilei, September 23,1993 - "La Hădăreni situatia ramine exploziva".
18. Evenimentul Zilei, July 28, 1993, "O noua masina de facut bani in Occident, Ţiganii utilizeaza trucul cu ciinii si pisicile moarte".
19. Evenimentul Zilei, October 23, 1993, "Intr-o circiuma din Strehaia a avut loc conferinta nationala a Partidului Romiilor Nomazi".
20. Ibid.
21. Adevărul, July 28, 1993, "Partida Romilor despre rasism in anumite publicatii".
22. Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty Report, nr. 126, July 6, 1994.
23. "Much ado about nothing", was how Evenimentul Zilei commented on the event.
24. According to a 1995 study by the Romanian Institute for Public Opinion Polls, Romanians regard Roma as the minority they dislike most: 68% of the respondents declared that they do not like Roma as compared to only 5% who stated that they like them and to 27% who were indifferent in the matter. See Mungiu, Alina, "Românii după "89 - Istoria unei neînţeleger", Humanitas, Bucharest, 1995.
25. Gilberg, Trond, Nationalism and Communism in Romania: The Rise and Fall of Ceauşescu's Personal Dictatorship, Westview Press, Boulder, San Francisco and Oxford.
26. The Romanian Institute for Public Opinion Polls, "Information Dissemination Patterns in Romanian Society after 1989", Bucharest, 1993.
27. On scapegoats, see especially, Girard, René, The Scapegoat, Athlone Press, London, 1986.