Perhaps the item of the greatest substance that emerged from this year’s meeting of Bulgarian media published in foreign countries was research into the portrayal of Bulgaria abroad.

The research was done by the Bulgarian Media Coalition and covered the June 2005 to January 2006 period. It was presented at the Second World Meeting of Bulgarian Media, the second such gathering of its type, held this year in Chicago in the United States.

The study covered 4565 items in 642 media in 70 countries, according to a report by Bulgarian news agency BTA.

It found that the most coverage of news from Bulgaria in that time was of the saga surrounding the June 2005 parliamentary elections, and the subsequent deal-making that led to the formation of the current tripartite coalition Cabinet. Closely related to this topic, and also drawing a large share of coverage, was analysis of the composition of the new Government.

In line with the time-honoured if somewhat weary and not always valid journalistic maxim that bad news makes good news, the other items from Bulgaria that got a lot of coverage were the threat of bird flu (avian influenza, to those who are not tabloid headline writers) and the floods that inundated large parts of the country from spring to autumn last year.

Those in charge of making strategic decisions about promoting Bulgaria’s image abroad would do well to consider, on the basis of the study, in which countries Bulgaria gets coverage, and the nature – negative or positive – of that coverage.

The number of items about Bulgaria, on a daily average, was higher than you might think – 29 a day, peaking at nearly 100 soon after the June elections. The most extensive coverage of Bulgaria was in Germany and Russia, followed by countries in South Eastern Europe. According to the Bulgarian Media Coalition’s research, stories about Bulgaria were most numerous on Deutsche Welle radio (231), the BBC (221), the Slovak news agency SITA (132) and the Romanian daily Adevarul (124).

BTA reported that, in terms of attitude, the proportion of items expressing no position increased from 2.8 to 12.2 per cent, and that of negative stories from 13.1 to 16 per cent. The share of positive and neutral items decreased.

Importantly, the most critical items appeared in Romania, Germany and the United Kingdom, the three countries where the largest number of media brought out the largest number of items on Bulgaria during the period monitored by the Bulgarian Media Coalition. The most numerous positive items on Bulgaria appeared in Romania. (This study was done, of course, before the May 2006 European Commission report on the EU-readiness of Bulgaria and Romania, which led to a flood of anti-Bulgaria comments in Romania on the basis of the belief that Bucharest was being held back by its southern neighbour.)

The study found that the attitude to Bulgaria was prevalently positive in Albania, Slovakia, and Serbia and Montenegro.

Bulgaria’s EU accession attracted the greatest interest (and the most mixed reaction) among foreign media in the period: the subject turns up in a quarter of all stories. Other important subjects were the economy and the home scene in Bulgaria. The country drew criticism in items on Bulgarian services and products, its arms trade, human rights and nationalism (presumably meaning ultra-nationalism, in the context of Ataka getting seats in Parliament).

The foreign media praised Bulgarian tourism, international relations and cultural exchange.

To reinforce the point made briefly above, about the effect of the May EC report on media and political attitudes expressed in Romania about Bulgaria, it would be interesting to read an analysis of the coverage book-ending the time of the report. Observers, casual or dedicated, of coverage of foreign and international media of Bulgaria cannot have failed to notice that Western media outlets’ backgrounders on the country leaned towards the negative. While some may choose, probably correctly, to interpret the EC report as positive for Bulgaria in the sense that it did not actually recommend delaying accession until 2008, the report as a media event generated a host of stories depicting Bulgaria as thoroughly infested by organised crime and corruption, as if the streets were war zones from which a universally starving population sought refuge. A Bulgarian colleague commented at the time that, having glanced at the foreign media coverage, he considered himself rather lucky not to have been bombed or shot perambulating the streets of Sofia.

However, it is easy, but not very helpful, to deride a great deal of the foreign media coverage as no more than superficially researched and driven by cliches and bias (and so far, I have not mentioned the Liverpool Echo and their ilks’ coverage of the Michael Shields trial, which is geared to proving that Bulgarian courts boast more kangaroos than the Outback). Fortunately, the Liverpool Echo (no relation to The Sofia Echo) is not a journal with any prospect of shaping the national mood of Britain. A hostile attitude from a minor tabloid is a pinprick in comparison to the injury inflicted by significant media linking Bulgaria in the public mind with the phrase “organised crime and corruption” – and it has to be acknowledged that they did not tissue this criticism from nothing, but from the EC report itself, among other sources.

The challenge now facing Bulgaria, and specifically its investment promotion and tourism agencies, is in properly analysing what the Bulgarian Media Coalition found, and planning a media strategy response.

Well yes, let us not forget what the Chicago meeting was about. It was meant to do more than simply bring together a bunch of journalists to share their glories and gripes in bringing out expatriate newspapers. Thirty Bulgarian media from 14 countries, including Australia, Canada, Greece, Switzerland, the Vatican, Spain, Moldova, Serbia and Montenegro, France, Russia and Ireland participated in the meeting. Chicago alone, home to 100 000 Bulgarian expatriates and emigres, hosts five Bulgarian newspapers, two internet sites and a local television station in Bulgarian.

One result of the Chicago meeting was a Bulgaria-based Association of Bulgarian Media Across the World that, in the words of BTA Director-General Maxim Minchev, will help Bulgarian media abroad. The meeting also led to the founding of a competition for Bulgarian media abroad that promotes the country’s image with, by the by, one of the awards being for media that “preserve the purity of the Bulgarian language”. While these moves are all very noble, those behind it will have to acknowledge that similarly, the reach of Bulgarian media in foreign countries in influencing public opinion will be limited in the extreme.

In a message to participants in the Chicago forum, President Georgi Purvanov said: “Now that we are on the home stretch to attaining one of the key goals of Bulgarian society in the past few years – full membership in the European Union – what we need more than ever is real unity and every Bulgarian’s effort to build the authentic image of Bulgaria”.

Purvanov’s message is one that deserves a considered, and fully-resourced response at home, as much and even more so than abroad, certainly including a sophisticated multi-media campaign and the hosting of opinion-shapers in this country. No Potemkin villages will do, of course. Marketing Bulgaria and changing the attitudes that prevail towards this country will not be achieved without simultaneously taking genuine action on the issues arising from the EC’s May and preceding reports on Bulgaria. After all, fortunes in adspend will not pay off if the public turns against a product because it is not to their taste. Ask Coca-Cola.