|
Media
in Serbia
Despite the almost three years which have passed
since Serbia opted for democracy, there is no sign
that the Serbian Government has a strategy on developing
the media sector. The adoption of new media legislation
is well behind schedule while the government ignores
the outcome of public debates on the draft bills.
This has left media exhausted as they struggle with
an irregular market environment and inequitable business
conditions. Nor have the authorities responded to
demands from the public to review media operations
under the previous regime. This raises the legitimate
question of the degree to which Serbia has really
rid itself of the heritage of an oppressive regime,
what real improvement has occurred in the status of
media and the government’s attitude to the sector.
The old Public Information Act introduced in 1998
has not been applied since 2000. Most of its provisions,
apart from those applying to the registration of media
outlets, were repealed in February, 2001, after the
Constitutional Court ruled them unconstitutional.
In the meantime, the Serbian Government has reimbursed
media for some fines applied under the former regime
and disbanded the former Ministry of Information.
In May, 2003, the government accepted a proposal to
cut tax on print media.
At the federal level, the authorities introduced
a moratorium on new frequency licences pending the
adoption of new media legislation. This legislation
was promised by the end of 2001. They also dropped
the obligatory television subscription fee which was
formerly added to household electricity accounts.
The new Broadcast Act was not adopted until July,
2002, and the Public Information Act and Telecommunications
Act in March, 2003. Legislation on accessibility of
information has still not been adopted, despite the
government pledge to do so together with the other
media legislation.
Although the government took no active part in the
preparation of media legislation, it had a decisive
influence on the versions finally adopted by the Parliament.
The Public Information Act, as the basic media law
supposed to guarantee freedom of the media and the
rights and responsibilities of journalists, was adopted
during the state of emergency imposed after the assassination
of Prime Minister Zoran Djindjic, when civil rights,
including the right to freedom of speech, were severely
curtailed. This was a practical way to bypass discussion
of certain articles introduced into the bill immediately
before it was tabled in the Parliament. In addition,
there was no public discussion of amendments introduced
by MPs with government support, despite these having
been rejected as unacceptable after months of public
debate. The act as adopted has nine completely new
articles which regulate the extremely sensitive issue
of prohibiting the distribution of information. This
was seen by media as an attempt to introduce the principle
of censorship into Serbia’s media legislation.
Another provision introduced as an amendment in
the Parliament provided for the state to establish
a news agency. The public debate had ruled this concept
out for a number of reasons. Firstly because it introduced
a special set of rules for only one kind of outlet
– a news agency – while all other state-owned media
were required to be transformed into public services
or privatised. This was justified with the argument
that “the public has the right to be informed objectively
and without bias of all the positions taken and decisions
made by state bodies” and because, if there were only
private news agencies, “the public could be left without
information on decisions taken by the state”. This
indicates the government’s reluctance to trust media
which are not under its direct control. This attitude
also calls into question the government’s candour
in its stated intention of transforming the state-owned
television network into a public service.
The new Public Information Act, without proper justification,
also places more restrictions on the protection of
information sources than did earlier drafts seen by
the public.
Too many detailed regulations with detail, and the
idea that the Public Information Act should regulate
issues which are normally dealt with under common
law, have created a situation which imperils the very
nature of media. One example of this is the stipulation
that the permission of bystanders is needed for street
photography.
It is possible that no one will observe these pointless
provisions which largely make nonsense of the act.
The multiplicity of provisions demonstrates the government’s
fear of the media and its distrust of their role in
society.
Although the new Public Information Act was prepared
in parallel with the Bill on Accessibility of Information,
the government did not table the latter in the Parliament.
Given that the Public Information Act is more general
and primarily regulates the work of the media, it
is essential that the government shows the same readiness
to define the obligation of public service media to
provide the public with information. This would generate
a general climate of responsibility and stimulate
the media to engage in investigative and analytical
journalism.
The controversial Broadcast Act has given the impression
that the government is not prepared to relinquish
the inherited mechanisms of exerting pressure on the
media. The greatest concern attaches to the tardiness
of its adoption together with changes to the draft
which had been prepared by local experts with the
support of Council of Europe and OSCE consultants.
Work began on the draft in November, 2000, when the
Media Centre and the Independent Association of Serbian
Journalists established a working group to draft media
regulations. This group’s draft was submitted to the
government in August, 2001, but was not adopted by
the cabinet and tabled in the Parliament until April
2002. At the beginning of June the same year, the
government suddenly withdrew the bill from parliamentary
procedure, saying it had a large number of amendments.
It was returned just a week later. The proposed number
of members of the independent regulatory body, the
Broadcast Agency Council, had been reduced from fifteen
to nine, and the list of bodies with the right to
nominate members of the Council had changed to the
detriment of the civil sector. The law as adopted
gives the state the right to nominate four of the
nine councillors, two are nominated by social institutions
– the universities and the Church - and two by lobby
groups and professional organisations. The ninth member
is nominated by the eight other councillors, with
the proviso that the candidate must live and work
in Kosovo. In this way, the balance of influence on
the Agency, and therefore on the entire broadcast
sector, including public service outlets, was swung
in favour of the state, particularly in the politicised
Serbian society.
The implementation of the Broadcast Act was also
questionable, with fresh procrastination by the Government
and the Parliament in nominating their candidates
for the Council. The deadline prescribed for the establishment
of this body was exceeded by more than six months.
Then eight members were hastily elected on April 11,
2003, with the procedures prescribed by the Act being
breached in the case of two members. Although the
law obliges the Parliament to publish lists of all
candidates with basic biographic data at least thirty
days before the appointment of Council members, the
candidacy of Nenad Cekic was published only three
days before and that of Vladimir Cvetkovic on the
very day of the election.
The legality of the appointment of the ninth member
of the Council, the Kosovo representative, nominated
by the other eight councillors, is also highly questionable.
The Parliament elected the nominated candidate, Goran
Radenovic, although his biography reveals that he
does not meet the legal requirement of living in Kosovo.
The delay in implementing the Broadcast Act, and
thus the appointment of the Council, also blocked
the transformation of the state media network, Radio
Television Serbia, into a public service. This state-owned
company was left without reliable funding or a new
management structure, leaving it open to continued
outside interference. Preparations for public bidding
for broadcast frequencies was also brought to a halt
and the chaotic media market, in which more than a
thousand broadcasters are operating, was needlessly
allowed to continue. The delayed application of the
law also set back the transformation of property ownership
in local media operated by local government bodies.
Thus the eventual appointment of the Council members
in April and May, 2003, still brought no hope that
this body would tackle the innumerable problems in
a responsible way, because a third of its members
have been elected illegally. This has called the credibility
of the entire Council into question. The situation
was aggravated at the Council session of June 4, when
one of the members who had been appointed in breach
of procedures was elected chairman of the council.
The councillor nominated by professional media and
journalists’ associations, Snjezana Milivojevic, subsequently
announced her resignation at the same meeting.
This all indicates that the Serbian authorities
have not found the resolve to adopt a new legal framework
for Serbian media operations and thereby make an irrevocable
break with the practice of direct influence on the
media. Instead they have opted for a compromise, a
modest step forward from the practice of the former
regime rather than what had been expected from a democratic
government. To this may be added that fact that even
these new laws are now being breached – as in the
case of the election of Broadcast Agency Council members
– in order to secure a sympathetic attitude to certain
broadcasters. Thus it is clear that media in Serbia,
particularly those which have maintained their independent
position and critical attitude to the authorities,
have great cause for concern.
This has been unfortunately compounded by changes
in criminal legislation which have not addressed provisions
used to limit the freedom of speech employed by the
former regime as a mechanism to suppress independent
journalism.
Only the crime of illegal possession and use of
radio stations has been decriminalised. Still on the
roll of criminal acts are the dissemination of false
information, libel and tort, with more severe sanctions
for these acts when committed via the media. The serious
obstacle this presents to media operations and investigative
journalism is demonstrated by the fact that the majority
of charges brought under this legislation have been
for articles which analyse the abuse of authority.
Not even the courts have shown a grasp of the role
and position of journalists and the media in society,
even in cases where the legislation provides mechanisms
for not penalising media and journalists who have
behaved in accordance with the highest standards of
professional journalism. The courts are frequently
reluctant to employ the principle that critical analysis
is more acceptable when it applies to politicians,
rather than private individuals.
Apart from the limits imposed by the legislation
as it stands, media and journalists are also faced
with a generally poor financial position. In order
to survive they frequently find themselves forced
to deal with companies of dubious repute. Journalists,
too, are vulnerable to bribery and corruption. On
the other hand, neither the political nor the social
elite displays a sufficient grasp of the independent
position of media and the importance of this position
for the success of social reform and the pursuit of
the public interest.
Recommendations:
· Urgent adoption of legislation on the accessibility
of information.
· The Serbian Government and representatives of the
working group should review the viability of certain
provisions of the Public Information Act which do
not conform to the principles of the working group
and propose that the Parliament delete the questionable
provisions via a bill to amend act. This relates particularly
to the provision regulating the prohibition of publication
and the provision enabling the state to establish
a news agency.
· The Serbian Parliament should revoke its appointment
of Nenad Cekic and Vladimir Cvetkovic to the Broadcast
Agency Council because of the breach of legally prescribed
procedures, and dismiss Goran Radenovic who does not
meet the conditions for membership of the Council.
· Urgent creation of the Serbian Telecommunications
Agency which should regulate the use of frequencies
and prepare a strategy for the purpose of frequency
range and a strategy for frequency allocation. This
body should also step up work on defining the technical
parameters which would enable the Broadcast Council
to develop a sound strategy for the distribution of
radio frequencies and television channels in such
a way as to balance the needs of local media, regionalisation
and define the frequency requirements for national
media.
· Urgent decriminalisation of the acts of libel and
tort and their reclassification under civil law. The
financial sanctions applicable should be redefined
in the light of the real economic situation in the
country.
· Launch and intensify the process of examining the
role of media under the former regime and establish
the possibility of lustration in publicly funded media.
· Enable intensive collaboration of media in the
region for the exchange of information as well as
specialised programming linked to issues such as the
tackling of organised crime and the disclosure of
war crimes.
· Urgent resolution of the use of the building in
Resavska Street which, before World War I, was bequeathed
to all journalists and to which the Association of
Journalists of Serbia and the Independent Association
of Serbian Journalists should have equal access.
· Expedite the ownership transformation of state-owned
media, including regional and local companies established
by provinces or municipalities.
· Urgent identification of those responsible for
the murder of Slavko Curuvija and Milan Pantic, journalists
assassinated in 1999 and 2001 respectively.
· Facilitation of information exchange in the region
in addition to television and radio exchange, including
the possibility of mutual distribution of print media
with tax relief and without customs duties.
· Bring into conformity the provisions of various
pieces of legislation which would prevent the establishment
of monopolies in the media sector and cross-media
ownership which would stimulate media pluralism.
Recommendations to the International Community and
Donors:
· It is essential to provide a support system for
education programs. Apart from reconstruction of formal
journalism courses, it is necessary to strengthen
programs of alternative educational institutions for
short-term training. It is also necessary to broaden
the scope of international exchange in order to give
direct insight into the standards of appropriate media
companies and academic bodies. In the same way there
is a need to develop programs to educate managers
in the media.
Donors should review their strategies and direct their
attention particularly to:
· The successful transformation of Radio Television
Serbia into a public service, together with the transformation
of as many media outlets as possible so that the public
may play a more effective role in monitoring politics
and public life.
· Support for ownership transformation of media as
a basis for economic development of the sector and
for securing stable, independent, autonomous editorial
policies. A democratic country should have only a
public service (radio and television) controlled by
independent bodies, while all other media companies
should be privately owned.
Defining strategies to incorporate comprehensive
aid packages:
· Providing everything from expert insight into business
practices and potential to the development of long-term
strategies based on this expertise, including financial
support, investments and loans aimed at achieving
these goals. This would assist in improving professional
standards in journalism and the development and long-term
economic stability of respected media at the national,
regional and local levels.
· Galvanising objective and investigative programs
which would keep the public informed of crimes which
have been committed. This is a necessary step in paying
respect to the victims and enabling the people of
the region to understand the complexity of the conflicts
which have occurred and the suffering of innocent
people on all sides. Only in this way can the conditions
be created for those responsible to be brought to
justice, which would pave the way for reconciliation
and co-existence in the region.
................................................
ANEM - Association of Independent Electronic Media
Veran Matic
................................................
BETA News Agency
Ljubica Markovic
.................................................
BLIC Belgrade Daily
Veselin Simonovic
.................................................
DANAS Belgrade Daily
Grujica Spasovic
.................................................
Ekonomist Magazine
Mijat Lakicevic
.................................................
FoNet News Agency
Zoran Sekulic
.................................................
Glas javnosti Belgrade Daily
Slavoljub Kacarevic
.................................................
Local Press
Vukasin Obradovic
..................................................
Media Team in Serbia for Cooperation with Stability
Pact
Vladan Radosavljevic
....................................................
NIN Belgrade Weekly
Slobodan Reljic
.............................................
NUNS, Independent Journalist Association of Serbia
Milica Lucic Cavic
.............................................
Production Group Mreza
Lila Radonjic
.............................................
RTS Radio Beograd
Rade Veljanovski
.............................................
RTS Radio Beograd I program
Dušan Radulovic
.............................................
RTS Radio 202
Nebojsa Spaic
.............................................
SEEMO Serbia
Radomir Licina
.............................................
VIN – Independent TV Production
Gordana Susa
.............................................
VREME Belgrade Weekly
Dragoljub Zarkovic
..............................................
In Belgrade, June 6, 2003
|
