On proposed changes to Information Law

On proposed changes to Information Law "If I had to choose between government without newspapers, and newspapers without government, I wouldn't hesitate to choose the latter." It goes without saying that Thomas Jefferson had in mind the media that preserve the public interest and the press that refrains from smearing individuals, families and institutions; the media that gives equal importance to journalistic ethics and the role of an impartial mirror of public opinion; a responsible media that use a critical approach and investigative journalism as a necessary tool to expose the failings in the society and politics and contribute to improvement of the community. Today, the government and the media in Serbia find themselves at opposing sides in the battle for amendments to the Public Information Law. The motive for the hasty process of adoption of amendments to the Law lies in the fact that the rule of law often does not function properly, which means that tax avoidance and violation of obligations toward business partners and financial institutions using legal loopholes are often tolerated. Apart from this, the main product that is the reason for existence of the media is the exact opposite of what Thomas Jefferson had in mind when he imagined the media devoted to fundamental principles of journalism. Instead of solving these burning issues using existing laws, the step that is being undertaken threatens the freedoms that have already been won. Although the journalistic community seems to be taken by surprise, it is clear that this is a logical continuation of all things that have taken place since 2000 but failed to attract as much public attention as this proposed amendments to the Public Information Law. The Association of Independent Electronic Media (ANEM), of which B92 is a member, was among the first to condemn the way in which the Government's proposed amendments to the Public Information Law would change the media legislation in Serbia. We have pointed out that some of the solutions offered by the Government as part of this proposal would objectively jeopardize the freedom of expression. We are convinced that in this we have full support of all media professionals. Criticisms of the Government's proposal often turn into fierce debates about which of the media and journalistic associations or professionals have remained truly uncompromised in the struggle for independent journalism, but mostly fail to take into account the fact that this proposal is not without precedent and constitutes a continuity of media policy in Serbia. Less than two months ago, using a similar model, without a previous public debate, the National Parliament amended the Broadcasting Law at the proposal of a group of ruling coalition's members of parliament. It was not done for the first time. The Law had been amended four times before these last modifications, each time without a public discussion and usually in an urgent procedure. The essence of the Law has been altered, regardless of the fact that the Law should have achieved depoliticization of the media scene by transferring regulatory duties in the area of broadcasting to an independent and professional body. Following these badly conceived modifications to the Law, we have arrived to the solution which is now in force and which stipulates that some candidates for members of the Council of the Republic Broadcasting Agency are appointed by the civil sector and professional associations, but with the Parliamentary Committee for Culture and Information having the authority to arbitrarily pre-select these candidates. Is this Law an objective threat to the freedom of expression? Of course it is, but it has already been adopted. The Code of Conduct for Broadcasters, adopted by the Council of the Republic Broadcasting Agency, has been in force for more than two years and it has seriously hindered the broadcasters' ability to practice investigative journalism. We are not aware of whether the Constitutional Court has made a final decision regarding the initiative for appraisal of constitutionality of the Code filed by the Belgrade Center for Human Rights. Do the provisions of the Code objectively threaten the freedom of expression? Yes, they do, but it seems that everyone has forgotten about the Code. Privatization of public media outlets was stopped at the end of 2007. At the same time, we have not received any systemic guarantees of editorial independence of non-privatized public media outlets from the state and local self-governments as their owners. This issue undoubtedly threatens the freedom of expression, but the Government, instead of harmonizing the law on local self-government and the capital city law, has proposed another law – the Law on National Councils of National Minorities – that supports governmental and paragovernmental ownership of the media and the resulting governmental or paragovernmental control over the media. In the end, today we find ourselves fighting the closure of all media outlets that have been blocked more than 90 days. But in this fight we have neglected that during the previous period in Serbia, especially in the area of broadcasting, adverse conditions for activities of the media have been systematically created, especially regarding media outlets that apply high professional standards and insist on news program. These adverse conditions are evident in the issuance of more licenses than the market can support, in the way the advertising is regulated, in pirate broadcasting that is ignored, and in the procedure of calculation of license fees for broadcasters. It is beyond dispute that a media law that is supposed to be democratic should not contain provisions which stipulate that the registration process is a necessary precondition for work and not just a mechanism that guarantees transparency of ownership. It is beyond dispute that a supposedly democratic media law must not limit the right of the media owner to sell – or even give away – a media outlet, provided that such a move does not create illegal media concentration or harm creditors. It is beyond dispute that legally mandated penalties should not completely shut down a media outlet, or that the ban on publishing is mandated for unacceptably wide range of offenses, if we suppose that the proposer's aim was to increase accountability of the media, not achieve their closure. But in our struggle against these provisions we must not forget that the problems in the media scene in Serbia are much deeper and more serious than this unfortunate proposal of amendments fo the Public Information Law. Even if these amendments were not adopted because of fully justified public criticisms, such an outcome would be a Pyrrhic victory for media professionals – media legislation had been unfavourable to media outlets even before this Government's proposal and its defeat would not change that. Serbia needs a comprehensive analysis of all problems in the media scene and a thorough reform of media legislation. This analysis and reforms are urgently needed. If this solution is not realized, consequences for all stakeholders will be disastrous. Media outlets will continue their small battles, failing to see the forest for the trees; they will use their resources to fight their own disadvantageous position, wearing themselves out in the process. Politicians and governments will be compromised as undemocratic, as the enemies of the media; since the governments are often composed of conflicting political options, they will be easily brought during the crisis. This kind of self-destruction during this crisis is completely irresponsible. The global crisis should inspire us to help each other, especially the citizens of this country, to survive and preserve the fragile democratic achievements that have resulted from the October 5 changes. When discussing the relationship between the media and governments, the media often cite the words of Thomas Jefferson written two centuries ago: Veran Matic "But in our struggle against these provisions we must not forget that the problems in the media scene in Serbia are much deeper and more serious than this unfortunate proposal of amendments fo the Public Information Law."

On proposed changes to Information Law

"If I had to choose between government without newspapers, and newspapers without government, I wouldn't hesitate to choose the latter."

It goes without saying that Thomas Jefferson had in mind the media that preserve the public interest and the press that refrains from smearing individuals, families and institutions; the media that gives equal importance to journalistic ethics and the role of an impartial mirror of public opinion; a responsible media that use a critical approach and investigative journalism as a necessary tool to expose the failings in the society and politics and contribute to improvement of the community.

Today, the government and the media in Serbia find themselves at opposing sides in the battle for amendments to the Public Information Law. The motive for the hasty process of adoption of amendments to the Law lies in the fact that the rule of law often does not function properly, which means that tax avoidance and violation of obligations toward business partners and financial institutions using legal loopholes are often tolerated. Apart from this, the main product that is the reason for existence of the media is the exact opposite of what Thomas Jefferson had in mind when he imagined the media devoted to fundamental principles of journalism. Instead of solving these burning issues using existing laws, the step that is being undertaken threatens the freedoms that have already been won.

Although the journalistic community seems to be taken by surprise, it is clear that this is a logical continuation of all things that have taken place since 2000 but failed to attract as much public attention as this proposed amendments to the Public Information Law.

The Association of Independent Electronic Media (ANEM), of which B92 is a member, was among the first to condemn the way in which the Government's proposed amendments to the Public Information Law would change the media legislation in Serbia. We have pointed out that some of the solutions offered by the Government as part of this proposal would objectively jeopardize the freedom of expression. We are convinced that in this we have full support of all media professionals.

Criticisms of the Government's proposal often turn into fierce debates about which of the media and journalistic associations or professionals have remained truly uncompromised in the struggle for independent journalism, but mostly fail to take into account the fact that this proposal is not without precedent and constitutes a continuity of media policy in Serbia.

Less than two months ago, using a similar model, without a previous public debate, the National Parliament amended the Broadcasting Law at the proposal of a group of ruling coalition's members of parliament. It was not done for the first time. The Law had been amended four times before these last modifications, each time without a public discussion and usually in an urgent procedure.

The essence of the Law has been altered, regardless of the fact that the Law should have achieved depoliticization of the media scene by transferring regulatory duties in the area of broadcasting to an independent and professional body. Following these badly conceived modifications to the Law, we have arrived to the solution which is now in force and which stipulates that some candidates for members of the Council of the Republic Broadcasting Agency are appointed by the civil sector and professional associations, but with the Parliamentary Committee for Culture and Information having the authority to arbitrarily pre-select these candidates. Is this Law an objective threat to the freedom of expression? Of course it is, but it has already been adopted.

The Code of Conduct for Broadcasters, adopted by the Council of the Republic Broadcasting Agency, has been in force for more than two years and it has seriously hindered the broadcasters' ability to practice investigative journalism. We are not aware of whether the Constitutional Court has made a final decision regarding the initiative for appraisal of constitutionality of the Code filed by the Belgrade Center for Human Rights. Do the provisions of the Code objectively threaten the freedom of expression? Yes, they do, but it seems that everyone has forgotten about the Code.

Privatization of public media outlets was stopped at the end of 2007. At the same time, we have not received any systemic guarantees of editorial independence of non-privatized public media outlets from the state and local self-governments as their owners. This issue undoubtedly threatens the freedom of expression, but the Government, instead of harmonizing the law on local self-government and the capital city law, has proposed another law – the Law on National Councils of National Minorities – that supports governmental and paragovernmental ownership of the media and the resulting governmental or paragovernmental control over the media.

In the end, today we find ourselves fighting the closure of all media outlets that have been blocked more than 90 days. But in this fight we have neglected that during the previous period in Serbia, especially in the area of broadcasting, adverse conditions for activities of the media have been systematically created, especially regarding media outlets that apply high professional standards and insist on news program. These adverse conditions are evident in the issuance of more licenses than the market can support, in the way the advertising is regulated, in pirate broadcasting that is ignored, and in the procedure of calculation of license fees for broadcasters.

It is beyond dispute that a media law that is supposed to be democratic should not contain provisions which stipulate that the registration process is a necessary precondition for work and not just a mechanism that guarantees transparency of ownership. It is beyond dispute that a supposedly democratic media law must not limit the right of the media owner to sell – or even give away – a media outlet, provided that such a move does not create illegal media concentration or harm creditors. It is beyond dispute that legally mandated penalties should not completely shut down a media outlet, or that the ban on publishing is mandated for unacceptably wide range of offenses, if we suppose that the proposer's aim was to increase accountability of the media, not achieve their closure.

But in our struggle against these provisions we must not forget that the problems in the media scene in Serbia are much deeper and more serious than this unfortunate proposal of amendments fo the Public Information Law. Even if these amendments were not adopted because of fully justified public criticisms, such an outcome would be a Pyrrhic victory for media professionals – media legislation had been unfavourable to media outlets even before this Government's proposal and its defeat would not change that. Serbia needs a comprehensive analysis of all problems in the media scene and a thorough reform of media legislation. This analysis and reforms are urgently needed.

If this solution is not realized, consequences for all stakeholders will be disastrous. Media outlets will continue their small battles, failing to see the forest for the trees; they will use their resources to fight their own disadvantageous position, wearing themselves out in the process. Politicians and governments will be compromised as undemocratic, as the enemies of the media; since the governments are often composed of conflicting political options, they will be easily brought during the crisis. This kind of self-destruction during this crisis is completely irresponsible. The global crisis should inspire us to help each other, especially the citizens of this country, to survive and preserve the fragile democratic achievements that have resulted from the October 5 changes.