|
- It’s a good thing that we heard this and that
Vučić and Mijatović finally met, and the civil society will
constantly remind the government of those promises. The OSCE
Representative on Freedom of the Media is brave and direct and she
already stated many important facts about media freedoms. The
problem is that many people have not heard her message. The mockery
of journalists in Serbia continues and the Prime Minister still gets
agrivated by journalists’ questions. Given everything that has
happened over the past three years and the original radical policies
of the Serbian Progressive Party, it is hard to believe in changes.
It is interesting that pro-regime media are anti-European. This is
evident from their reporting about human rights, freedoms, the
wartime past, etc. and the “blows” are directed at pro-European
media and journalists.
* Minister Tasovac said at the OSCE conference
that journalists and media should look into the mirror. What is the
fault of journalists for the media situation?
- Someone from the government should be the last
person to speak about this topic. However, this is the fundamental
question for media professionals and civil society. Media also have
their own commercial and other interests, which are not always in
accordance with the citizens’ interests. There are also media
tycoons and elites. A positive development is that journalists and
editors of serious media started to speak about their own
responsibility in public forums over the past year. These voices are
still weak, but they are receiving support from colleagues. All
responsibility was shifted to tabloids for years. What we need now
are professional educated journalists who are ready to rebel within
their editorial staff in order to put some topics on the agenda and
to professionally and systematically analyze them. In other words, a
rebellion in the media profession is needed, as well as resistance
to control and dictatorship. Therein lies the key to changes in the
media landscape.
* The media landscape is most often described with
the terms censorship and self-censorship. Is this the only or the
most important problem?
- I would like to emphasize first that control
mechanisms are sophisticated and not exclusive in the local context.
Moreover, two fundamental human rights are being violated – the
right to information and freedom of expression. Simulations of
public debates are organized. We live in a social turmoil and most
media are superficial in their choice of topics. Changes are
bypassing us, as was the case during the ‘90s. Control mechanisms
are not only related to the media, they also exist in culture and
society as a whole. For example actors have been attacked for
participating in plays and film that the government deems
provocative and artists have been let go because of their social
activism. These are not just incidents; it is a serious trend of
violations of artistic freedoms.
* A package of three media laws was adopted last
year, in accordance to the 2011 Media Strategy and EU standards –
the Law on Public Information and Media, the Law on Electronic Media
and the Law on Public Service Broadcasting. Will they improve the
media landscape?
- Our laws were drafted with a significant
assistance of the EU and OSCE and with enormous internal resistance
from the government and the media. It is a misconception to think
that laws are sufficient guarantee of media freedoms. Even if they
are consistently implemented, there has to be an actual willingness
of the people in power to “keep their hands off of the media”. For
example, laws do not address the influence of advertisment agencies
which are close to the parties in power, nor do they have an effect
on the threats against journalists. Freedom of the media is closely
related to the readiness to accept the right to a different opinion,
right to criticize and rebel against something. The laws were
adopted in August, and Prime Minister has since acted contrary to
the laws. One of the most important novelties in the Law on Public
Information is the financing of public interests, which is of course
very broadly defined. What is a public interest for this government?
Writing about war crimes is obviously not an interest of this
government, but I would say that it is quite important for the
citizens of Serbia and their future.
Privatization does not guarantee independence
* You are advocating for the termination of
privatization of the media. The sale of numerous local media is
announced, including Belgrade TV Studio B, Tanjug… Has privatization
not contributed much to the improvement of media landscape?
- Privatization is necessary, but it is not
a guarantee of independence. This is clear not only from our case,
but also from other Eastern European countries. In the competitive
media and other markets, small professional media which guarantee
the existence of media pluralism can hardly survive. They thus
either resort to commercialization and adjustment of content to the
mainstream trends, or they simply disappear. In the privatization
process, the media are usually purchased by people close to the
party in power. On the other hand, the example of the national
broadcaster TV Pink best demonstrates how the editorial concept in
private media can easily and quickly be adjusted to the new
government. Private conglomerates define the media landscapes in EU
countries. In some countries they consist of two or three media
groups, while in other countries – such as Italy – they consist of
one media group. Independent intellectuals and journalists, who, in
similar situations in the past, have started newspapers, now
transfer to online media.
|
