Home Blog Page 196

Suđenje za paljenje kuće novinara Jovanovića: Još jedan optuženi promenio iskaz, Jovanović kaže da su mu nudili mito

0

BEOGRAD, 14.02.2020. – Optuženi za paljenje kuće novinara Milana Jovanovića, Dragoljub Simonović, tokom suđenja zadovoljno se smeškao, optuženi Novaković sad tvrdi da Simonovića ne poznaje, dok advokati odbrane čoveku kome je spaljena kuća postavljaju takva pitanja da je sudija morao da ih zaustavi rečima: „Ne sudi se ovde Jovanoviću“

Dragoljub Simonović, funkcioner Srpske napredne stranke i bivši predsednik Opštine Grocka, zadovoljno je, često sa osmehom i uz ležeran stav čoveka oslobođenog svakog osećaja stida, pratio današnji „obrt“ na suđenju u kome je okrivljen za paljenje kuće novinara Milana Jovanovića. Jer, danas je još jedan okrivljeni promenio iskaz i Simonovića „oslobodio“ krivice za nalog ovog monstruoznog čina. Optuženi Igor Novaković sad tvrdi da Simonovića ne poznaje, da nikad sa njim nije razgovarao, ali i da se sa okrivljenim Vladimirom Mihailovićem nije dogovarao da organizuje paljenje kuće Milana Jovanovića. 

Hteo je samo, kaže, da „barabi i bitangi“ ošteti auto, ali nikakvo paljenje nije pominjao. 

Sudskom „obrtu“ tu nije kraj. Okrivljeni Igor Novaković izneo je danas pred sudijom i pravi mali triler scenario o svojoj, kako je rekao, „otmici“ iz pritvorske jedinice Centralnog zatvora, prošle godine. Tada su ga, kaže, bez naloga sudije i bez znanja njegovog advokata, sa lisicama na rukama, nepoznati policajci odveli u Upravu kriminalističke policije na Adi Ciganliji, odnosno u Makiš, i tamo ga, bez vode i hrane, te bez prava na odlazak u toalet, držali šest–sedam sati da bi ga naterali da okrivi Simonovića kao nalogodavca za paljenje novinarove kuće, a da Vladimira Mihailovića okrivi da mu je dao novac da angažuje nekog da to uradi. A ništa od toga nije tačno.

„Priznao sam nešto što nije tačno, na šta su me oni naterali“, rekao je Igor Novaković i precizirao da su u pitanju dve netačne stvari. Prva, da mu je Mihailović dao novac, a on dao Marinkoviću. Druga, da mu je Mihailović rekao da se zapali auto i da je „Sima Ciganin organizator“.

MILAN JOVANOVIĆ: NUDILI SU MI MITO

Novinar Milan Jovanović ispričao je na sudu da mu je neko ko se nije predstavio prošle godine nudio mito da odustane od optužbi na račun Dragoljuba Simonovića.

„Osoba, ne znam kako se zove, došla je kod mene kući i rekla mi: ’Gospodine Jovanoviću, recite bilo koju bezobraznu cifru da ovaj postupak protiv Simonovića ode pod tepih’“, ispričao je na sudu Jovanović.

On tvrdi da ga je odbio jer, kako je rekao, ne bi sebe mogao da pogleda u ogledalo.

Jovanović je posle suđenja rekao za Cenzolovku da veruje da će pravda pobediti i da će sudija znati da prepozna istinu. Takođe, istakao je da je u nalazu budžetske inspekcije koja je ispitivala poslovanje Opštine Grocka u vreme kad je Dragoljub Simonović bio njen predsednik, za 2018. godinu, navedeno mnogo primera milionskog nenamenskog trošenja novca, koji dokazuje istinitost pisanja portala za koji radi, kao i da će Žig info početi da se time bavi u nastavcima.

Pokušaj osporavanja zakonitosti rada tužioca Milovanovića

Prema današnjem svedočenju Igora Novakovića, sve se odigralo tako što ga je Vladimir Mihailović, koga poznaje iz teretane, pitao jednog dana: „Buraz, imam problem sa barabom i bitangom. Da li možeš da nađeš nekog da mi pomogne, da ošteti auto?“ Rekao sam mu: „Buraz, ne bavim se time.“ 

To se, kako je rekao, događalo početkom decembra 2018. godine, neposredno nakon što mu je umro otac i zatrebao mu novac. Družio se sa Mihailovićem jer je hteo, kaže, da mu što bolje proda neki plac za koji je Mihailović bio zainteresovan i samo mu je to bilo na umu, a nije ga zanimalo ko je „baraba i bitanga“ koja smeta potencijalnom kupcu placa. 

Advokat Ivica Vuković detaljno je ispitivao Jovanovića o veličini police na kojoj je novinar držao brojni, skupoceni alat koji je skupljao celog života. Da li je cirkular veliki ili mali, da li je presa velika ili mala. Tražio je od Jovanovića da precizira koliko santimetara prostora je u garaži bilo za alat

Prema daljem Novakovićevom svedočenju, nekoliko dana nakon ovog razgovora, sreo je Aleksandra Marinkovića, okrivljenog da je bacio „Molotovljev koktel“ na kuću novinara, i pitao ga: „Mali, je l’ hoćeš da sjebeš jedan auto“. Novaković tvrdi da mu je ta ideja da angažuje Marinkovića slučajno sinula jer mu je bio potreban novac, a Marinković mu je dugovao „oko 500 evra“ koje u tom trenutku nije imao da vrati.

„Mislio sam na – polupati stakla, izbušiti gume, prosuti ulje po autu. Nijednog trenutka nisam pomenuo paliti, zapaliti, ’Molotovljev koktel’. Kako se stvorila ideja u njegovoj glavi da pali, ja stvarno ne znam. Moja je zamisao bila da će to da pomogne da Mihailović kupi plac od mene. Posle toga nisam video Marinkovića“, ispričao je Novaković na suđenju.

Ovakvo svedočenje Igora Novakovića nije bilo neočekivano, jer je pre njega, takođe okrivljujući neimenovane policajce da su ga pritisnuli da lažno svedoči i okrivi Dragoljuba Simonovića, Vladimir Mihailović promenio iskaz i sad se te dve priče okrivljenih organizatora paljenja kuće međusobno podupiru. 

Takođe, Novakovićevim svedočenjem o navodnoj „otmici“ iz zatvora, koju je negirao upravnik zatvora i za koju zasad nema materijalnih dokaza, osporava se zakonitost rada zamenika javnog tužioca Predraga Milovanovića.

Da podsetimo, zameniku javnog tužioca je na jednom od prethodnih ročišta Dragoljub Simonović pretio da „može i da ne bude više tužilac“, upravo osporavajući zakonitost njegovog rada. Nakon svedočenja i promenjenih iskaza i Vladimira Mihailovića i Igora Novakovića, sav teret za paljenje kuće pao je na Aleksandra Marinkovića – koji je u bekstvu. 

Kome će sudija pokloniti poverenje?

Prema ovim novim verzijama, Dragoljub Simonović je potpuno nevino okrivljen, a za to su zaslužni nekakvi neimenovani policajci koji su pokušali da mu napakuju težak zločin za koji je zaprećena kazna od osam godina zatvora. Budući da se sve zasniva na priznanjima i negiranju tih priznanja, sve će zavisiti od toga kome će sudija Slavko Žugić pokloniti poverenje.

Simonović je pitao Jovanovića i da li je imao dozvolu da počne sa rekonstrukcijom kuće, kao i koliko je bila stara stolarija na kući. I advokati Gostiljac i Ivica Vuković, kao i Dragoljub Simonović, postavljali su takva pitanja da je sudija Žugić u jednom trenutku pomalo povišenim glasom pokušao da sve to zaustavi: „Ne sudi se ovde Jovanoviću“

Svedočenje Igora Novakovića ostaće upamćeno i po još nekim pikanterijama. Ne samo da je pogrešio datum, tačnije godinu, iznoseći optužbu na račun novinara Milana Jovanovića, koji je navodno dolazio do njegove kuće i pretio njegovoj supruzi, nego je ispričao i dve bizarne priče o pozajmici od „oko 500 evra“ i o čaurama koje je video ispred kuće Milana Jovanovića kada je ponovo, sasvim slučajno, prolazio tuda u vreme policijskog uviđaja na dan kada je Jovanoviću spaljena kuća. 

Novaković je naveo da je iz kola, u prolazu, video dve čaure, i to jednu nasred ulice, a drugu malo ukoso i levo. Naime, u novinarskim izveštajima se navodi da je na Jovanovićevu kuću pucano da bi se sprečilo da pobegne, tako da je supruga morala da ga ošamućenog od dima izvlači iz kuće.

Kad je u pitanju pozajmica od „oko 500 evra“ koja je navodno bila jedan od motiva da Igor Novaković predloži Aleksandru Marinkoviću da „ošteti“ kola, Novaković je ispričao da je novac pozajmio sredinom 2018. godine jer je „hteo dečku da pomogne“, a ne sa kamatom. 

Priča o pozajmici u kojoj se ne navodi tačan iznos čudna je tačno onoliko koliko i empatija prema novčanoj iznudici jednog „dečka“. Novaković tvrdi da je novac „u crvenoj koverti“ na kojoj je napisao „Kloki“ ostavio u jednom kafiću čijeg se imena ne seća. Bilo je zanimljivo i kad je opisao da je odbio da policiji preda snimak sigurnosne kamere sa svoje kuće jer on „ne voli policiju“ i od nje „beži“.

Priča o ovako darežljivoj pozajmici i Novakovićevom planu da uveže predlog Vladimira Mihailovića o oštećenju kola „barabi i bitangi“ uklopila se na sledeći način:

„Da sam od Mihailovića tražio novac, on bi mi dao. Time bih namirio dug koji mi je dugovao Marinković, a ako bi bilo više, onda bih častio Marinkovića“, ispričao je juče Igor Novaković.

„Ne sudi se ovde Jovanoviću“

Mnogo vremena i pažnje na današnjem ročištu poklonjeno je vrednosti spaljene i uništene imovine novinara Milana Jovanovića. Odštetni zahtev za kuću i sve što je Jovanović celog života sticao, a što je nestalo u plamenu 12. decembra 2018. godine, podnet je na sedam miliona dinara. 

Advokati okrivljenog Simonovića, ali i sam bivši predsednik Opštine Grocka, trudili su se da taj odštetni zahtev prikažu kao nerealan, da uteraju u laž novinara Milana Jovanovića i da ga prikažu kao nekredibilnog svedoka koji je proganjao bivšeg predsednika opštine. 

Novaković tvrdi da je novac „u crvenoj koverti“ na kojoj je napisao „Kloki“ ostavio u jednom kafiću čijeg se imena ne seća. Bilo je zanimljivo i kad je opisao da je odbio da policiji preda snimak sigurnosne kamere sa svoje kuće jer on „ne voli policiju“ i od nje „beži“

„Da li vi opsesivno pratite Simonovića?“, pitao je u jednom trenutku Simonovićev advokat Viktor Gostiljac. Mučno je bilo slušati pitanja kojima je insinuirano da nije sve spaljeno i uništeno u požaru, kao i da je vrednost toga što je spaljeno višestruko niža. Simonović je čak, kad je dobio priliku da postavlja pitanja oštećenom Jovanoviću, izjavio: „Imam slike da je poklanjao nameštaj po selu“, a radilo se o dva delimično spržena kreveta koja je Jovanović izneo u dvorište u nameri da ih baci, ali ih je na nečiju molbu poklonio. 

Simonović je pitao Jovanovića i da li je imao dozvolu da počne sa rekonstrukcijom kuće, kao i koliko je bila stara stolarija na kući. I advokati Gostiljac i Ivica Vuković, kao i Dragoljub Simonović, postavljali su takva pitanja da je sudija Žugić u jednom trenutku pomalo povišenim glasom pokušao da sve to zaustavi:

„Ne sudi se ovde Jovanoviću“, rekao je sudija Žugić.

Advokat Ivica Vuković detaljno je ispitivao Jovanovića o veličini police na kojoj je novinar držao brojni, skupoceni alat koji je skupljao celog života. Da li je cirkular veliki ili mali, da li je presa velika ili mala. Tražio je od Jovanovića da precizira koliko santimetara prostora je u garaži bilo za alat ako je tu parkiran „mercedes“. Inače, Jovanović je poslednje rate kredita za spaljeni „mercedes“ otplatio, kako je sam rekao, tek na leto prošle godine. 

„Meni u kući nije ostalo ništa. Sve je istopljeno, uništeno“

Često se pominjala i Slavko Ćuruvija fondacija koja je pokrenula humanitarnu akciju prikupljanja novca za renoviranje Jovanovićeve kuće. Advokat Vuković je želeo da zna gde su priznanice i ko garantuje da je sav kupljeni materijal ugrađen baš u kuću, zašto Slavko Ćuruvija fondacija nije angažovala građevinsku firmu nego je to uradio Jovanović… 

Prema ovim novim verzijama, Dragoljub Simonović je potpuno nevino okrivljen, a za to su zaslužni nekakvi neimenovani policajci koji su pokušali da mu napakuju težak zločin. Budući da se sve zasniva na priznanjima i negiranju tih priznanja, sve će zavisiti od toga kome će sudija Slavko Žugić pokloniti poverenje

Advokatica Zora Dobričanin Nikodijević je podsetila da su proračuni Slavko Ćuruvija fondacije „daleko niži“, da je prikupljeno 2.626.000 dinara, uz bankarsku proviziju od 39.310, kao i da su proračuni Fondacije 4.495.000 dinara. 

Advokati su Milana Jovanovića više puta podsećali da se pored njegove kuće nalazi druga koja je na prodaju za 35.000 evra i pitali ga koliko misli da vredi kvadrat njegove kuće, pa i proveravali da li njegova kuća ima 196 kvadrata.

Odgovarajući na sva ova pitanja, Milan Jovanović je rekao da je pored donacije koju je dobio od Slavko Ćuruvija fondacije, dobio i nešto preko 1.000 dolara donacije iz Njujorka, od novinara, da je sve to uložio u rekonstrukciju kuće i kupovinu stvari za kuću, ali i da se dodatno zadužio između šest i sedam hiljada evra kupujući ono što je potrebno. Milan Jovanović je procenio da će mu trebati još dvadesetak hiljada evra za sanaciju, ne računajući stvari i alat koji su u kući uništeni.

„Meni u kući nije ostalo ništa. Sve je istopljeno, uništeno“, rekao je novinar portala Žig info.

Inače, Jovanović je juče bio ispitivan u svojstvu svedoka. Iako je pripremio mnogo fotografija i dokaza kojima je hteo da ukaže na nelogičnosti u svedočenjima Mihailovića i Novakovića kojima se neimenovani policajci navodno terete za nekakvu zaveru protiv Simonovića, odnosno pritisak na njih da ga lažno optuže, sudija Žugić nije dopustio iznošenje tih dokaza. 

„Moja uloga je da cenim logičnost iskaza. Još sam oštrog uma“, reči su kojima je sudija odbio Jovanovića. 

Sudija je, takođe, pred kraj suđenja zaključio da „nijednom okrivljenom nije dozvolio više da priča“ nego što je to dozvolio okrivljenom Dragoljubu Simonoviću.

Naredno ročište u slučaju paljenja kuće novinara portala Žig info zakazano je za 30. mart u 9 sati, u Palati pravde.

Press release of the Main Board of SMCG upon the situation in RTV Budva

0

PODGORICA, 15.02.2020. – The Main Board of SMCG expresses concern about the political pressure on Iva Pavlovic, editor-in-chief of RTV Budva, because we believe any kind of pressure on media and employers is unacceptable, especially political.

The media and journalists must act only in the interest of the public and its right to know. Not in the interest of political or any other particular groups. On the other hand, this is one more confirmation that the practice of appointing staff on a political basis in local public broadcasters is pernicious to the media. It is recalled that through the proposals to amend the Law on Audiovisual Media Services (the current Law on Electronic Media), the Trade Union of Media of Montenegro has tried to influence the way local public broadcasters operate now. First of all, it relates on the way how these media are financed and the attitude of the local governments towards them, and also of the composition of councils which now in most cases do not serve the purpose of their establishment.

SMCG Main Board call the members of Council of RTV Budva to reconsider the situation in which the local public broadcaster was brought in, determine the identity of a Council member who was directly tried to pressure the editor-in-chief of that media, if the published record is credible, and take adequate measures to protect the principle of journalistic/editorial independence when editing the media. The Trade Union, as it has done many times before, stresses that journalists must be allowed to work freely and professionally and condemns any attempt to influence those responsible in the media. We also point out that the situation in Budva, which the public is aware of thanks to the recording of a telephone conversation between the editor-in-chief and a member of the Council, is not the only one of its kind and that similar happens in many local public broadcasters where municipal officials and the ruling majority give themselves the right to brutally interfering in the work of the media which should work in the interest of the public and the local community.

Novi SHARE vodiči za informacionu bezbednost

0

BEOGRAD, 14. 02. 2020. – Vodiči SHARE Fondacije “Informaciona bezbednost” i “Centar za prevenciju bezbednosnih rizika u IKT sistemima – CERT” inovirani su u skladu sa izmenama i dopunama Zakona o informacionoj bezbednosti.

Novi vodiči pripremljeni su u saradnji sa RATEL-om, Ministarstvom trgovine, turizma i telekomunikacija, Misijom OEBS-a u Srbiji i Ambasadom Švedske. Oni predstavljaju pregled i tumačenje obaveza IKT sistema od posebnog značaja i pojašnjenje rada centara za prevenciju bezbednosnih rizika u IKT sistemima (CERT). Predgovore vodiča napisali su državna sekretarka u Ministarstvu trgovine, turizma i telekomunikacija Republike Srbije Tatjana Matić i direktor RATEL-a dr Vladica Tintor.

Izmene Zakona o informacionoj bezbednosti, usvojene u oktobru 2019. godine, približile su ovu oblast pravnom okviru Evropske unije, odnosno NIS direktivi. Zakonom se uređuju mere zaštite od bezbednosnih rizika u informaciono-komunikacionim sistemima, odgovornosti pravnih lica prilikom upravljanja i korišćenja informaciono-komunikacionih sistema, a određuju se i nadležni organi za sprovođenje mera zaštite, koordinaciju između činilaca zaštite i praćenje pravilne primene propisanih mera zaštite.

Vodič “Informaciona bezbednost” objašnjava osnovna zakonska načela informacione bezbednosti, ulogu nadležnih organa u ovoj oblasti, delatnosti operatora IKT sistema od posebnog značaja, njihove zakonske obaveze i odgovornosti, kao i linkove ka dodatnim resursima.

U vodiču “Centar za prevenciju bezbednosnih rizika u IKT sistemima – CERT” sadržana su objašnjenja uloge i rada različitih vrsta CERT-ova, pregled nacionalnog zakonodavstva koji se odnosi na CERT-ove, te međunarodne organizacije za koordinaciju.

 

Sami Kurteshi’s and Elvis Hoxha’s labelings against Adriatik Kelmendi, threaten freedom of expression

0

Public labeling done by the Lëvizja Vetëvendosje political party officials, Sami Kurteshi and Elvis Hoxha, towards the journalist Adriatik Kelmendi for AJK is very concerning and a violation of the personal and professional integrity of journalists.

In the Facebook post of Mr. Kurteshi, he says that the questions from journalists sound more like police questions rather than political questions.

“This is frightening, because it shows the level of their education within their profession.” stated Mr. Kurteshi while the interview between Prime Minister Albin Kurti and Adriatik Kelmendi was being broadcasted.

In the post of Mr. Hoxha, he refers to journalist Kelmendi as cynical and cunning.

“The questions posed by the Rubikon journalist had the same shallowness and cynicism as before. With cunningly shallowness, he did not understand that the Prime Minister was giving him dignity, entitling him three times during the conversation. The journalist was asking the same question five to six times.” it is stated in the post by Mr. Hoxha.

This is not the first time that LVV officials have publicly label journalists, authors and media executives, by telling them how to exercise their profession. We as the Association of Journalists of Kosovo, call for LVV officials to stop with this language, that aims to intimidate journalists.

AJK also calls to Albin Kurti, the Prime minister and the leader of Vetëvendosje to distance the party from these kinds of attacks that are suppressive to the freedom of expression and freedom of journalist to practice their profession without hinderance.

The Basic Court upheld the journalist’s claim: The state has to pay 5,000 euros

0

PODGORICA, 13.02.2020. – The Basic Court in Podgorica ruled in favor of journalist Gojko Raičević, and the state of Montenegro will be obliged to pay him 5,000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage resulting from an ineffective investigation of the attack on the editor of the “IN4S”.

Raičević sued the state for 10,000 euros, as state authorities did not take all necessary action to investigate the attack from 2015.

Raicevic, in his lawsuit, sought compensation for non-pecuniary costs in the amount of 10,000 euros, plus 500 euros a month, until the perpetrator was found, but the court did not adopt that part of the lawsuit.

The verdict, signed by Judge Veljko Radovanović, was issued on February 10.
“Three years have already passed, and the State Prosecution cannot even identify state police officers, which is grotesque. Accordingly, the State Prosecution continues to seek, and the last act completely discourages any thinking person, while pointing out that the police, (un)related to the tops of the prosecutorial and state apparatus of force, have essentially become a force on their own, alienated from society, their own citizens and opposed to their people”, it is said in the lawsuit.

As further stated, an ineffective investigation in this case should not be left without harsh sanctions, as it would be a great impetus to police beaters, and an extremely bad message to the citizens of Montenegro, but also of Montenegro as a state of Europe.

“Ineffective investigations not only rapidly weaken the efficiency and never-achieved independence of the rule of law system, but also endanger the lives of people themselves”, the lawsuit states.

Editor in chief of portal IN4S, Gojko Raičević, attended the protests 24 October 2015 as a journalist, together with a ournalist/cameraman of Serbian TV. During the protest, on two occasions the policemen hit him. Raičević says that both attacks followed the recording of how the police used force against citizens. The first attack was when one of the police officers approached Raičević and hit him in the back with a baton. Photos and medical report prove the attack. There is a video footage that recorded the second attack of a police officer on Gojko Raičević with his official police baton on his right shoulder, and then with his fist in the Raičević’s jaw. A police officer has not been identified yet, but there is a record that he came out of the police vehicle license plates PG MN 234.
Council for Civil Control of Police concluded that there was an inappropriate use of force against a citizen G.R. who offered no resistance. Council has requested from the Police to publish the identity of a police officer, as well as information regarding the processing of his conduct and inform the public about it.

BH Journalists: We condemn the political pressures and libelous statements of the Mayor of Zenica Kasumovic

0

Sarajevo, 12.02.2020. -The Steering Committee of the BH Journalists Association condemns the political pressures and defamatory statements of Mayor of the city Zenica Fuad Kasumovic, directed against journalists – correspondents of BH Radio-Television (BHRT) and Federal Television (FTV) from the Information-Technical Center in Zenica.

On N1 television’s program, Mayor Kasumovic said correspondents from Zenica were “high-ranking officials” in political parties and he particularly attacked journalist Harun Bosnjak, describing him as a “high-ranking SDA member.” Without any evidence, Mayor Kasumovic accused journalists from public service of holding Zenica citizens in an “information blockage” and reporting about this city and local authorities “only in a negative way”.

The BH Journalists Steering Committee considers presenting untruths about BHRT and FTV journalists as intolerable, as well as the constant attempts to restrict their right to freedom of expression, including the brutal attempts to professionally disqualify Harun Bosnjak and other Zenica journalists critical of the city authorities’ actions, with Mayor Kasumovic headed. Political pressures on media outlets in Zenica, interference with editorial politics, making lists of “eligible” and “ineligible” journalists, shifts in local public service, denial of access to information and public events… are only part of the inappropriate and undemocratic methods of suppressing media freedom in this city that lasts with the same intensity and continuity since 2016.

The BH Journalists Steering Committee requests Mayor Fuad Kasumovic to apologize publicly to journalist Harun Bosnjak and FTV and BHRT correspondents, and to urgently withdraw the untruths and insults told at N1 television.

At the same time, the BH Journalists Steering Committee draws the attention of N1 television and other media in BiH that unilateral, defamatory statements and targeted demolition of journalists’ professional integrity by politicians cannot in any way be a part of a desirable political debate in the media. In such situations, it is the duty of the media to enable the “other party” to deny defamatory claims or to react to inadmissible political manipulations with the reputation of some fellow journalists.

A year of black chronicle, filtrated information and auto censure

0

By: Amra Mušinović Husić

Sarajevo, 12.02.2020. – When we talk about media situation in BiH during 2019, it is obvious that political pressures, auto censures, followed by numerous threatening and threats, but also physical assaults and attacks on journalists, in large scale marked the year of 2019. Therefore, the situation in 2019 had not changed in comparison with previous years in this sense. The role of media has always been to release news, release audio – visual contents with the purpose of informing, educating and entertaining general public audience. In order to have all of these met and fulfilled by professional journalists’ standards and principles, we should start with the ethics of informing in the first place.

The ethic of informing

The ethics of informing that I shall be covering in this text is, above anything else, tied and related to journalists’ activity in general. It is bound and to some extent tied with the role of media and their relations and tied with the conduct towards the general public audience. This specific theme has again, many critical zones that (apart from journalists) many editors and media entrepreneurs have to encounter since this process, at the end, does make significant impact and influence on the quality of released information.

Journalists working for media houses have in 2019, as well as during previous years, been encountering and facing the following set of problems:

– fragile journalists’ independence which is often followed by the
– limited access to information and the
– limited freedom of expression through censure or auto censure.

These critical zones are in different ways related to all parties involved in communication plans in our society. They are even related to general public audience. The question is whether the general public audience can, at least to some extent, be held responsible for the information they receive, because, in order to improve the situation on media scene in BiH, general public audience must take certain part of responsibility as well. We have had the opportunity, particularly in local web sites, to witness that it was the public that would often create and tailor web site contents. Unfortunately, the black chronicles posted on these local webs site sections are always the most popular choice for viewing with the highest number of viewers, including video clips that should not be posted anywhere in the first place, due to the fact that they often contain scenes that some viewers may find distressing.

General public audience, on the other hand, seem to be feeding themselves on such contents and believe that they are deprived of full and accurate information, unless they are provided with clips of smashed cars, including the footage of full accident and dead bodies in cracked and smashed cars.

Media must take full responsibility for the texts and articles they post, including video clips, photos and released information. They have the liberty not to release and post certain footages, video clips and photos, if some viewers may find these distressed; however, it is personal choice for every single individual and general public audience to choose whether they want to consume provided material. Taking this into consideration, media have in 2019, flooded and loaded local media scene with distressed and disturbing video clips and footages (video recordings showing murders, killings, car accidents, child abuses Etc).

And then ask ourselves what happened to ethics here.

When we talk about ethics, the truth should be the most important factor here; nevertheless, responsibility should equally be taken as crucial factor as well. This is where we get to important segments that media have faced and encountered in 2019 (including previous years too) and this was their responsibility towards the general public audience. This particular responsibility should be more important than any other responsibility, especially in terms of the conduct towards employers and public figures. The question is: Has it achieved this goal?

Just as I have already written, one of the most fundamental or basic task for media, is informing and in order to have general public audience informed, it would be necessary to enable and ensure free access to information, including information sources, as well as the right to free survey, research and investigation of everything that may have impact and influence on public lives. Having said this, we come to either a question or problem of media dependence or independence, particularly in 2019.

Namely, certain individuals performing public functions are often prepared to release information to carefully aimed and selected media house and this or these media houses would in return and at the end justify these actions thus providing these individuals with support. Therefore, the year of 2019 cannot be marked as the year where we could talk about equal conduct and relationship of ruling governing officials towards certain media houses.

And when journalists post something without permission coming from “the top level”, which party they should be accountable to and do they even have a chance to report to anyone from “the top level”? Would these journalists be the only party held responsible in this sense, or would this be considered as collective responsibility, having media house that they work for equally held responsible?

Personal conduct and relationship of journalists towards the sources they use, in order to get certain information, vastly depend on the relationship that media houses (that the journalists work for) would have with the surrounding environment and would also depend on the fact that media houses must keep good relations and well balanced ties with key public figures of social system. These relationships and ties are established on reciprocity based favors: sources tend and attempt to release certain information in public whenever they considered it suitable from their own point of view and based on their personal interests on one hand, and media houses, on the other hand, tend to collect various information and material in order to release the news in public. However, in reality, this reciprocity cannot be considered as the safest way of functioning for either party involved in this process.

The information that the sources want to release in public are not necessarily the information that may be considered interesting to general public audience and the information that journalists require on the other hand, are those that the sources often refuse to provide or at least they often do not give up on them easily. Namely, while some information is being ignored, other tends to be more valued and is being advanced to a higher level of big scale events and venues. We could accordingly conclude that there is a certain relationship of power balance, developed between the journalists and their sources and the sources usually come out as winners in this specific relationship, since they have the capability to control and master the situation and decide on the content of information which is to be released, including the moment in which they decide to release certain information.

Extended arm of politics

We therefore talk about complicated and complex mechanisms with social systems coming into the game, including political systems which, as a result, produce maximum limits, as far as journalists’ independent work is concerned, particularly from the survey, research and investigation point of view. This is why general public often conclude that journalists’ objectivity is often of illusionary nature and objectivity is, by its own nature, not denied; instead it is brought down and narrowed to information availability and source authenticity repsepctively.

Every media control in our country that is not based on internal shape and form of regulations, presumes the intervention of political figures, which can clearly be seen through countless number of media houses where media managers simply become and act as “extended hands” of particular political parties. This way does result in the violation of fundamental principles of professional journalism, which as a consequence present ordinary journalists with awkward and humiliating situations, especially when they are expected to release previously filtrated and controlled information by the above mentioned and listed “top level” sources.

Confronting this “chain” would mean being ready and prepared for sanctions, or eventually being ready to even physical assaults or attacks, just as there were many cases like this in 2019.

Consequently, it is no surprise that many journalists practice auto censure in order to find “peace and safe existence”.

This kind of situation could last for as long as the general public, along with local journalists, do not begin to impose pressure on political parties and governing institutions, in order to advance legal framework that would eventually, result in the improvement of working conditions in media field.

(This article was published in E-journalist bulletin no.72/73)

AJM and SAO signed Memorandum of Understanding

0

SKOPJE, 12.02.2020 – The Association of Journalists of Macedonia (AJM) and the State Audit Office (SAO) today signed a Memorandum of Understanding, focusing on the close mutual cooperation that should be intensified in the coming period.

The President of AJM, Mladen Chadikovski said that the Memorandum will create conditions for closer cooperation between AJM and SAO in order to organize joint workshops and activities to promote transparency and accountability in the work of the institutions, as well as accurate and timely information to the citizens. All this was welcomed by the Chief State Auditor, Maksim Acevski, who left open space and dynamics for concrete cooperation between the two institutions.

The Memorandum also envisages joint preparation of analyzes, researches and manuals as well as facilitated access to expert materials and literature in the SAO and AJM. In addition, the cooperation foresees the creation of campaigns for understanding the responsibilities, role and importance of the State Audit Office.

This Memorandum is aimed at building partnerships with state institutions in order to better inform the citizens on topics of particular public interest.