Public Frequency Allocation Contest and Its Repercussions

A statement in view of the public frequency allocation competition and subsequent events after the results were made public.

To understand better the current situation concerning the activities of the Public Broadcast Agency Council, I believe we should remind ourselves of the chronology of the previous events:

Early on in the process of drafting the Public Broadcast Bill, B92 and ANEM insisted that the influence of the state organs on the Council member nomination procedure should be reduced as well as that the civil sector, but also journalist, media and other professional associations should have more influence on the nomination procedure.

This suggestion was not taken on board, hence the balance of power was disrupted since instead of 2 out of 15 places in the Council, as envisaged in the draft law, the state organs were given the powers to nominate 4 out of the total of 8 Council members whereas these 4 Council members also influence the selection of the additional ninth member of the Council.

We also protested against the breach of procedural rules in the appointments of Cekic and Cvetkovic as members of the first Council as the public had not been previously presented with their official nominations and CVs, which was a legal requirement, but nonetheless they were appointed as Council members.

We demanded that the Council should not be dissolved as well as that only disputed Council members appointments should be reconsidered. However, this request was not accepted. Instead, the entire Council was dissolved by way of the amendments to the Public Broadcast Act adopted in 2004 (which, as we can see now, set a bad precedent since this might give an idea to someone to do it all over again).

As there was no manifest show of solidarity among the media and in public regarding these suggestions and initiatives put forth by the Association of Independent Electronic Media, ANEM, and B92; in view of the realistic danger that we could be accused of “placing obstacles in the path of efforts to introduce order into the media field”, and since we did not want to compromise our own principles; we withdrew from the nomination procedure for the new Council members as the parliamentary Committee for Culture and Information allowed unauthorised entities (labour unions, nonexistent associations, associations of performing artists and others which are not specifically named in the Public Broadcast Act) to take part in the nomination process.

In this regard, nothing changed either. There were candidates for Council members who had been nominated by organisations which had no legal rights to do so, or which had not even signed the nominations (e.g. SOKOJ and OPFYU had no right to field their candidates, while SOKOJ publicly denied that it had backed the Djoric’s nomination).

During the work on drafting the media development strategy and criteria, we insisted on measurable criteria so that any decision made by the Council could be more easily explained and supported as well as to successfully fend off the accusations about alleged arbitrariness in the Council’s deliberations. This proposal was also dismissed under the pretext that fully measurable criteria would restrict the powers of the Council members to vote on their decisions.

ANEM and B92 have been constantly warning of the flaws and problems occurring so far. Unfortunately, those who feel today that they have been deprived of what they should rightfully have did not react back then because either they did not realise there were serious problems in this respect or, perhaps, they expected their institutional and out-of-institutions influence needed to obtain the licences would be there forever.

Given that the public frequency allocation has not yet formally completed; and bearing in mind that appeals will most certainly be filed by disgruntled broadcasters, followed, possibly, by legal suits in courts of law; B92 finds it inappropriate at this point to comment on the Public Broadcast Council’s decision with regard to individual stations. And this – even more so since B92 has had no insight into the documentation submitted by other broadcasters. Therefore, at this moment, it is indeed impossible to give any valid comments.

Failed Bidders for National Licences Are Entitled to Voice Their Protest

We are now facing the consequences that entail limited scope for analysis of the Council’s decisions. The Parliament and the Council adopted laws and regulations which are in effect. Hence, there is no other possibility but to deal with all the objections and complaints within the framework of the existing legislation. In no way would I dare dispute the right of my colleagues to defend their rights to work and freedom of information in any manner they would see fit and appropriate – B92 has often been in similar situations. Therefore, I do support the right of all broadcasters and journalists to criticise the work of the Public Broadcast Council in a serious and appropriate manner. This, in our view, cannot be considered as pressure on the Council members since the legally protected position of the Council and personal credibility of its members must be such so as not to yield to pressure irrespective of where it is coming from – government, individual broadcasters, or lobbyists. Strong criticism at the Council‘s expense in itself should not be considered a good enough reason for an abrupt closure of BK TV overnight with the assistance of the police.

This situation is indeed a matter of concern for the electronic media as it may compromise the very idea about the need for an independent regulatory body to be in charge of the media regulation as opposed to the concept according to which this role should be played out by the Government or the Parliament as in the times of the Slobodan Milosevic’s regime.

B92 will be fighting against such a return to the past, bearing in mind that the process of introducing order and legality in the media field should not be either compromised or suspended by declaring the public frequency allocation competition and its results invalid.

In Belgrade,
26 April 2006 Veran Matic, B92 CEO