The Tenth Anniversary of the Panitza Excellence in Journalism Prizes

The presented collection contains all publications that received, in the course of a decade, the “Panitza Prize”. It summarizes and documents the way in which Bulgarian journalism was developing over the years of a disordered and apparently unending transition: a time when the word ‘democracy’ began to turn into a mocking gibe! This is neither the time nor the place for me to frivolously dare offer an analysis of our unenviable fate of the last fifteen years. In all probability, these years must have been inevitable – such as they were rather than what we had imagined them to be. Our generation, having spent its childhood, adolescence and adulthood within the socialist system, was destined to experience yet further hardship and disappointment after the 10th of November. What we are left with, is the sadly repeated wish that the future for our grandchildren should not be the same.
The idea to run a journalism competition belonged wholly to Dimi Panitza; it was stoked by his boyish enthusiasm and desperate optimism. One more thing; the competition was funded by him personally – a fact that was rather stunning to people accustomed to relying on one sole patron, the ‘socialist’ state. There was another unusual circumstance: all invited members of the jury agreed to work without remuneration. This obliges me to name each and every one of them, according to the chronological order of their participation: the oldest journalist amongst them, Petko Bocharov; writer and Member of the Grand National Assembly Georgi Velichkov; writer and world renown journalist Stephane Groueff; the unforgettable Toncho Zhechev; journalist Samuel Levi; the ever indignant radio host Lilly Marinkova; science-fiction writer Agop Melkonyan; sociology professor Georgi Fotev; journalist Roumyana Chervenkova; journalist and poet Ivan Matanov; president of the New Bulgarian University, Prof. Bogdan Bogdanov; journalist and TV host Boiko Vassilev; journalist Aneliya Dimitrova; satirist Yordan Popov; journalism professor Vesselin Dimitrov; Editor-in-Chief of the Sega daily, Dimitrana Alexandrova; long-suffering journalist Panayot Denev; journalist Anton Baev and political analyst Ivailo Dichev. Each year, on a rotating base, one Editor-in-Chief from the capital or countryside was added to the jury. In this way, the jury meetings and decisions were backed by the participation of representatives of Standard, Dneven Trud, Douma, Novinar, Sega, Sturshel, 24 Chassa, Capital and Pari newspapers, Playboy magazine, Sedmitza – Sliven, Narodno Delo – Varna, Reporter Dnes – Kurdzhali, Possoki – Pleven, Zname – Pazardzhik, Chernomorski Far – Bourgas, Borba – Veliko Turnovo, Maritza – Plovdiv, Bryag – Rousse and Stariyat Most – Svilengrad.
The Executive Council of the competition comprised President Dimi Panitza, journalist Ivan Nikolchev and myself – Georgi Danailov. Prof. Georgi Fotev was also invited for the last few years. Pursuant to the Statutes, the Executive Council was not present during meetings of the jury. This was done in order to avoid suspicions that Dimi Panitza or any other of us may influence the decisions. Naturally, despite this explicit provision, there were people who did not acknowledge it and felt annoyed at us. A widely known Bulgarian writer and friend of mine stopped talking to me for a whole year for not having received the prize. Yet risks are inevitable in this kind of enterprise. Vanity is familiar to everyone and much more so to writers. When we were advertising our first competition I dared encourage a talented author to submit a contribution. He thought for a while and said, ‘But what if I fail to win a prize?’
Over the years, the Panitza competition was received with mixed feelings by the journalistic guild. Some were rapturous, others – suspicious, and still others – derisive. The weekly Capital, for instance, published a rather insulting and crude opinion that blamed the jury for having been misled when defining one of the awards. The weekly Kultura, in its turn, did not like the works of one of our laureates. The daily Monitor did not like anything and never missed an opportunity to impute some cardinal sin to Dimi Panitza. In later years, however, after several journalists from Capital received the prize, the newspaper dropped its derisive tone. The editorial office of Kultura also did not object to the distinction received by their colleague.
What have the last ten years shown us? Undoubtedly, Bulgaria has good journalists but unfortunately it lacks good journalism. Our hopes to exert an impact on the quality of the press as a whole by means of a single competition turned out false and, to put it frankly, naive. Recently, I have been thinking and telling others that, in Bulgaria, journalism cannot enjoy its right of being the Fourth Estate, given that the other three powers are absent. It is an unattainable task to analyze the thoughts, words and deeds of our state luminaries when thoughts are difficult to detect; words stumble into each other while deeds get lost over the horizon. The number of people who read newspapers in the country is growing smaller and I would even say ‘Thank God for that!’, given that the remaining loyal and stubbornly newspaper-reading public is often flooded by torrents of vulgar information. Alas, the winning taste is the bad taste. How should our journalists fight against such a demand? Sadly, all this does not concern the press alone: look at the level of most TV programmes, watch and listen to the adverts – the absurdity of their texts can compete only with the lyrics of pop folk songs.
There are the commendable recent efforts of various associations, academies and federations to organize competitions similar to ours. Let us hope that their goal is indeed to promote truthful, independent and worthy journalism instead of raising some dust in the media air. In fact, with regard to these new initiatives of the profession, Dimi Panitza is again a greater optimist than myself.
Given the presence of so many competitions, awards and medals coupled with journalism that remains predominantly commercial in character, there were three options open to us: the first was to continue working in the old, classic spirit. The second was to say, ‘We stop at this point! It is your turn, gentlemen! But remember that we were the pioneers!’ This position was the most comfortable one: we would express the respective warm and deep gratitude and retire. However, the third option that we discussed with Dimi was to transform the Panitza award and renovate it in such a way as to make it a truly prestigious civil distinction. It will be received by the few who have proven, either by their courageous stand or journalistic quill, that they have not given in; that they have remained loyal to democracy despite the many false democrats; that they have managed to persuade us by their dignified conduct or word that they are defending the Thermopylae even if they know that ‘the Persians will break through after all!’
I choose the third option. I beg for an apology. I keep forgetting that the last word belongs to Dimi Panitza!

December, 2004 Georgi Danailov,
Member of the Executive Council of the
Panitza Excellence in Journalism Prizes