The staff received suggestions from the management that the paper should not publish articles – apart from official statements or small news – about subjects related to FHB Bank. The journalists, especially those on the business desk, were not really surprised at this because it was well known that Pecina was a shareholder at FHB. At first, they tried to resist and carried on writing about the subject but, according to a former journalist in the financial section, Murányi soon made it clear that ‘FHB was a taboo.’
In the meantime, another development made some staff members suspicious. At the beginning of 2015, Attila Mihók, then-CEO of Mediaworks introduced Júlia Beer, a PR professional, to the management of Népszabadság and Világgazdaság (a business daily in the Mediaworks’ portfolio). According to one of the persons present at the meeting, Mihók said Beer was an advisor to the owner, and that she would occasionally meet the editors-in-chief to help ‘better coordinate between the owner and the papers.’
Although Mihók, known as a strong-willed manager, did not give voice to his dissatisfaction, his body language showed that he was unhappy with the arrival of Beer, according to one participant. (Mihók refused to comment for the article.) Some journalists had similar feelings because they saw Beer’s presence as a breach of the paper’s autonomy. “VCP [Vienna Capital Partners] just pushed the Trojan horse into the system, wanting to have a closer supervision over the content,” said a former senior employee at Mediaworks.
From then on, Beer, who was described by Mediaworks employees as having excellent communication skills, was a frequent guest in the newsroom. She regularly discussed ongoing stories with the editors-in-chief, and often made remarks on them. She was careful not to present these as direct intructions. As one former senior editor said, “Juli is a professional communications expert, and she used the most sophisticated tools. She was remarkably good at packaging her messages.” Instead of giving orders she just pointed out when an FHB press statement was about to be published and asked how the papers would write about it. This tactics is dangerous because her remarks could clearly lead to self-censorship, the former editor explained.
Another former Mediaworks-employee had a very similar experience with Beer, who always “suggested” or “doubted” things, but never gave orders. ‘Why do you have to always write about these things?” she would ask when a story about FHB Bank was brought up.
Not only FHB was a taboo but practically everything in relation with its majority owner and CEO at the time, Zoltán Spéder. Spéder had been close to government figures, and even became an important business partner of the state during the integration of savings banks. Pecina and Spéder were not only linked through FHB but they had had a confidential business partnership since the ‘90s. “Their relationship is somewhere in between business partner and friendship, yet they never socialized privately,” according to a source close to Spéder. “Spéder spends his days with work, anyway,” the source added, “he’s not very good at nurturing social relationships.”
A telling example of Spéder’s special treatment, is when it was revealed that his name also appeared in the Panama Papers, showing that he had connections to offshore companies. When the news broke in May this year, one of the online editors was asked by his superiours not to write about it. But the call was unnecessary anyway: self-censorship worked already. “I knew that writing a news story on it would surely cause troubles,” the editor said. So, he decided to ignore the story.
Some journalists also told Direkt36 about the special attention that Sándor Csányi, the leader of OTP, Hungary’s biggest bank and therefore a rival of Spéder, got at Népszabadság. Reporters said that they received instruction suggesting that the publishing company would not mind to see articles painting a negative picture about Csányi. A senior editor told Direkt36 that they could write anything about Csányi but it was true that “Pecina wanted to know about anything published about the banker.”
The staff usually followed the guidelines on not to write in-depth stories on Spéder. Except once, when one of the journalists made a professionally questionable decision on a story connected to the banker, and this triggered an internal conflict.
This happened not long after András Murányi’s appointment as new editor-in-chief in August 2015. Marcell Murányi, the former editor-in-chief resigned after causing a lethal car accident. The two are brothers but András also had a long journalistic career behind him, of which he spent 14 years at Népszabadság.
András Murányi had only been in charge for a month, when the conflict burst out. On 9 September 2015, the government announced to build a network to distribute EU funds, and to do so, they needed partners. The bank would be chosen in a public procurement process, the government’s statement said.
While reading the statement, Balázs Horniák, editor of the financial desk, remembered that Sándor Csányi had made a remark a few months before: he had suspected that in the public procurement, FHB might be the winner.
Horniák decided to write an article on the subject, not only citing the statement, but also mentioning Csányi’s remark and also explaining Spéder’s more and more favourable position with the government. The article was ready by the evening. Horniák did not even try to put it into the print version, knowing it would not be possible to publish something like that. However, he had direct access to the website of Népszabadság. So he put the story there under the title ‘Csányi: A friend of the government is favoured.’
After a few hours, Horniák got a rather angry call from András Murányi. The editor-in-chief asked whether Horniák intended a ‘coup’ against him. He also asked why Horniák had not briefed him about such a sensitive article before publication. They eventually agreed to discuss the matter the next day. Accordingly, Murányi invited Horniák to his office the next afternoon. He told him that even hot topics could be covered but it was important to be loyal to the owner, and the stories connected to his interests should not be pushed too far.
Horniák and Murányi had had a troubled relationship before, but after the incident, the situation worsened. Finally, Horniák got an email on 30 September calling him to a meeting on the fifth floor to talk about his future at Népszabadság. Murányi and a HR-employee was present, and they briefly told him that he was sacked ‘on terms of a mutual agreement’. Officially, the cause was the unification of the political desk with the financial desk. The Csányi article was not mentioned. Six other staff members were fired alongside Horniák.
Besides Spéder’s business being taboo, some journalists were instructed to be careful with János Lázár, the head of the Prime Minister’s office. Lázár is admittedly a friend of Spéder, and they also had a work relationship because of the cooperation between FHB and the government. However in Lázár’s case, the instructions were even more vague than than in Spéder’s case. “We were told to be careful with stories about him, for example when writing the headlines. I did not understand the instruction fully, and I was not sure what to tell my colleagues,” an editor said. When asked, Murányi only told him not to “attack Lázár unnecessarily.”
Murányi and the editor had arguments over the matter several times. The source remembers Murányi repeatedly saying that “there are very few free media outlets, and there is no place where the owner has no interests at all.” Murányi thought this was right, “because there were a lot of other things that we were free to write about.”
When asked about it, Murányi told Direkt36 that the publisher indeed wanted to be told about the articles involving Lázár, but this did not mean that Népszabadság was not allowed to write stories uncomfortable for the minister. Once, he recalled, there was an article about politicians’ fuel costs, and it turned out that Lázár spent the most. The title of the article originally emphasized Lázár being the top spender, but later it had to be changed, because the publisher asked to ‘go easier’. In the end, Lázár was left out of the story’s headline.
It was also very important to be careful about information regarding Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s family, several journalists said. This was at least partly due to ethical reasons, because it was indeed not always clear what was to be considered in the public interest when it came to family members. There was also a story circulating in the newsroom, accordint to which Orbán once asked Pecina two things: Pecina should let him know if he ever wants to sell Mediaworks, the other was a request to leave his family alone. Several journalists heard this from András Murányi, who, according to two sources, learned about this from a member of the management. (Orbán and Pecina did not respond to questions.)
Népszabadság, however, did write about Orbán Ráhel and her husband István Tiborcz and their business. In October 2015, for example, Népszabadság published an article about the couple buying expensive paintings at an auction. After publication, Murányi was called by one of Pecina’s close advisors, telling him that ‘Vienna was outraged,’ which meant that Pecina was unhappy about the article. Murányi told the advisor that it was justified to write the story because the painting purchase raised questions of how the couple could afford it. He also said that this article was just like when the British press publishes about Prince William and Kate Middleton. Hearing that, the advisor sounded relieved, and said, ‘good, I’ll tell this to Pecina.’
Nagyon tetszett az írás, olvasmányos. Az ügy szempontjából lényegtelen, de Murányi miért nem értelmezte Rónai “ok”-ját úgy, hogy ki lehet tolni a nyomtatást?
Ha jól értjük a dolgokat, akkor pusztán egy “ok” nem volt elég, Rónainak intézkednie kellett volna.
Mennyi félreértés vádaskodás mellébeszélést lehet megtudni KÖSZÖNÖM. Bízom benne korrekt anyagukat mások is megosztják. Poly-mix.com
Ha még lett volna illuziója bárkinek az ú.n. független újságírásról, az e cikk után elszállt.
Kár az újságért, kezdett “magára találni” a vége felé.
Hányinger kerülget! Révai elvtárs kezét dörzsölgetné, ha lenne!!!!!
Csakugy eldontik a dolgokat a fejunk felett… Tomeny borzalom.
Jo cikk, jo munkatok csinaltatok. Egy dolgot nem találtam, a digitalis oldalont. Hogy történt a nol.hu lekapcsolás, és kik voltak ott? Valahol még létezik a hol.hu archívuma? Nem tudtatok beszélni az IT-felelősekkel?
Más érdekes dolgok: mit csinalnak most vagy fognak csinalni az emberek akik kileptek a játszmából (e.g.Mihók Attila, Rónai Balázs, Katona Viktor, Pásztor András), ha nem kívának mondani semmit, csak az infót elég is.
Good article, good work done. One thing I didn’t find, the digital. How happened the disconnection of ‘nol.hu’, and who were present then? Somewhere still exists the archive of nol.hu? Couldn’t you speak with the IT persons?
Other interesting things: what are now doing or are planning to do the persons, who stepped out of this ‘game’ (e.g.Mihók Attila, Rónai Balázs, Katona Viktor, Pásztor András), if they don’t want to talk, just the information (what?) is enough.
Good question, to be honest we didn’t look into how the site was disconnected. We focused on these people’s role in the specific story, we don’t really have information on their plans. It is known that Mihók already found another position but of course he left Mediaworks much earlier.