BELGRADE, 29.12.2018. – Where media ethics is concerned, 2018 was not fundamentally different from previous years, but what was noticeable was that some aspects of professional standards and some items of the Serbian Journalists’ Code of Ethics were violated far more frequently than before. The conclusion is backed by statistics: in the regular annual press monitoring, conducted by the Press Council for the fourth consecutive year, August and September 2018 were months with a much bigger number of Code violations than ever before. While the previous “record holder” was April 2016 (the month in which singer Jelena Marjanovic was murdered and then torn apart in the media) with 616 violations, August 2018 had 718, while September had 722. Since the results for October, November and December have yet to be unveiled, it is quite possible that even these records will be broken very soon.

LIE TO ME, AND NO NEED TO BE GENTLE  

What is most directly linked to the political atmosphere in the domain of media ethics is media content that violates the basic rules of the Code: the ones that pertain to the obligation of truthful reporting. The pro-regime media accuse opposition leaders of a variety of things on a daily basis – from cases of multimillion fraud and criminal acts to stealing garage parking spots, and practically not a single one of those affairs has been taken to the end in the sense of an epilogue in court or at least a media resolution. It is also difficult to count the thunderous announcements of civil and all other wars, equally regular, which turn out to be complete lies in a day or two. The readers are probably already used to all those things – just like they are used to always the same guests on TV shows, lists of forbidden interlocutors etc.

On the other hand, there is increasing media content in which the lies are slightly better concealed and harder to detect. First and foremost, editors resort more often to omitting certain facts: for example, there has been practically no mention of the December civil protests in the news programs of the public service; a single word hasn’t been written in the press or uttered on Belgrade’s city television about the hundreds of public transportation company drivers who have emigrated and the hundreds who have replaced them without appropriate preparation and training. Even when it is not directly connected with the political situation, this omission is in fact highly political. For example, all the media reported with a lot of fanfare on the electronic boards and diaries for first and fifth graders, as another in a line of media medals the current government has been decorated with. What wasn’t said, however, was that first graders cannot use those boards at all because they have not been harmonized with the curriculum, and instead serve for putting up drawings: that piece of information would mean that someone close to the government had probably “gotten a piece” of the job, which is an extremely dangerous and unwanted subject for the “suitable” media.

The biggest lies, and the ones easiest for the general public to swallow, pertain to economic well-being. The opening of factories and announcements of the arrival of major investors were regular topics, whereas stories of abuse of workers, strikes, harassment in the workplace etc. appeared only in a small number of surviving independent media. The Kurir daily, which ended 2017 as a self-proclaimed standard-bearer of media freedoms, while it (again) ended 2018 as one of the strongest pro-regime media, published the story of one Grandma Nada, who had picked up her pension payment but “couldn’t believe her eyes” when she saw she’d gotten 1,500 dinars more than the previous month. In this particular case, provisions of the Code that prohibit political advocacy (Chapter 2, item 1) and the obligation of publicizing all information that might influence the readers’ opinion (Chapter 5, item 3) were certainly violated, while many others could be discussed further (since it is questionable whether Grandma Nada actually exists, whether she is really ecstatic etc.). This is, in fact, the most perfidious form of political propaganda that is difficult to identify, because it is wrapped up in a readable and interesting “packaging.” Such and similar media content was more present than ever before.

STRENGTHENING SUZANA’S CAPACITIES

However, instead of doing everything to at least rein in the shameless lying by the pro-regime media, the authorities this year decided to institutionally rein in everyone else. The first one to speak out on the subject of fake news was Nenad Popovic, the minister in charge of innovation and technological development (?!), who said on June 26 that he had forwarded a proposal to President Aleksandar Vucic for the forming of a task force for defense against fake news. Allegedly, the then current piece of fake news on poisoned water “is just a test for some future fake news,” thus it is necessary to establish “a legal and institutional framework so that citizens are not exposed to fake news.” The expert public’s reaction was such that this unfortunate and bizarre idea was very quickly forgotten.

But just a few months later, at a session of the Club of Venice, Vucic’s media adviser Suzana Vasiljevic – a person far more powerful and dangerous than Minister Popovic, who has for years been systematically working on degrading, enslaving and destroying the freedom of speech and media – repeated the idea. It was precisely her who noted in the presence of the international public that “the media environment in Serbia is susceptible to various influences” and “often acts very irresponsibly,” and that (probably because of all that) Serbia “is strengthening capacities for the early detection of fake news.”

Both Popovic and Vasiljevic conveniently forgot to mention that fake news was in the greatest possible extent spread precisely by the media under their direct and highly tangible influence: according to research conducted by the Fake News website (fakenews.rs) for last year, which was presented on January 30, 2018, as many as 362 fake news items were published on 302 front pages of the Informer newspaper. On the other hand, not even such statistics prevented the commissions for financing media content of public interest to grant hefty sums from the budget to none other than Informer and Srpski Telegraf (proven to be the biggest violators of professional standards, to put it mildly).

ILLUSTRATION OF POLITICS

The Ilustrovana Politika weekly in 2018 also found itself in the anthology of disregard for professional standards. The magazine that even during the dark years of the Politika publishing company offered diverse, interesting reading material and reports, became a political tool in the hands of deputy editor Goran Kozic – also known as one of the brightest stars of Slobodan Milosevic’s media sky. Kozic transferred his personal, political and ideological wars to Ilustrovana Politika. The sporadic persecution of this or that individual (with a particular animosity toward Ljiljana Smajlovic), eventually materialized on two horrific front pages: one showing an enraged dog alongside the front pages of the Vreme and NIN weeklies and the Danas daily, and another with an artistic image doctored to show Ljiljana Smajlovic breastfeeding Veran Matic (?!).

Although the state leadership and the usually quiet Ministry of Culture and Information reacted instantly, there were no actual consequences. Suzana Vasiljevic resigned as a member of the Politika Supervisory Board (which probably affected only her pocket), while Kozic resigned from the editorial staff after the second front page, apologizing “to all whom my style of writing has offended or humiliated,” but also to “my family, my children and the state leadership (?!).” In this case, however, it is not important whether the omnipotent Suzana will sit on this or that board, and whether Kozic will be the editor of this or that media outlet – the main question and main problem is the lack of a normal political environment for the professional operation of the media, an environment that would disable the existence of the kind of front pages and articles Ilustrovana Politika has “graced” us with. And there we reach the point where respect for or violation of the Code is no longer important, but rather the creation of elementary conditions for the freedom of speech and media. That, again, is something that journalists’ associations should deal with – if they have decided to take part in the so-called “dialogue with the authorities,” i.e. with those who wield very specific, very tangible and for the time being pretty deadly power over the media.

BAD WORDS AND DIRTY IMAGES

Over the past few years, and this year in particular, the vulgar language taken from the street and reality shows has moved onto the “serious” newspaper pages and into “serious” media content. Thus disregard for the culture and ethics of public speech (as identified by the Journalists’ Code in Chapter 4, item 6) was registered not only in entertainment sections, but also in political squabbling, open letters – which were all the rage this year, and articles on current political bickering. The words “scum,” “madman,” “idiot,” “whore” were traditionally present, but now various bodily fluids (blood, saliva and – for now only on the pages devoted to show business – sperm), excrement, urine, pubic hair etc. have been added to the mix.

Although the Journalists’ Code strictly prohibits it, the media have been used for persecuting political opponents, but also in personal clashes with people who are less familiar to the public. The best known story of the sort in 2018 involved a female judge from Vranje, whom the tabloids dragged around on their front pages for days as immoral and prone to various vices – with illustrations obviously taken from her cell phone and private archives. However, since no one ever managed to show and prove what that woman was guilty of (except being good-looking and the fact that she likes to be photographed in provocative poses – which, again, is no one else’s business but her own), the story simply vanished. Several months later, a whole other news story revealed what that had all been about: the disgraced judge had clashed with a man who had presented himself as an adviser to Aleksandar Vucic and thus defrauded people. When this “adviser” was exposed, it turned out that he had been the one who had handed the compromising photographs to the tabloids. In that situation, the media seriously violated the right to privacy (Chapter 7, item 1), the obligation of using only honorable means in their work rather than stolen images and recordings (Chapter 8, item 1), but above all – the obligation prescribed by the Code to be especially cautious when dealing with sources who have their own, more or less hidden agenda (Chapter 5, item 2).

AT THE CEMETERY GATES

Except on the pages reserved for politics, the biggest number of violations of professional standards occurred in the crime news and show business sections, i.e. (traditionally) in the domain of violation of the presumption of innocence and increasingly in the domain of violation of the right to privacy.

At this time one may freely say that the right to presumption of innocence no longer applies in the Serbian media: even when they do not reveal the first and last name of a criminal suspect, the media regularly reveal at least one detail which can help to determine the person’s identity (photograph of their house, exact address, first and last name of their spouse or close relative etc.). What is particularly worrisome, especially due to the growing number of pedophilia reports, is the fact that oftentimes when the identity of the alleged perpetrator of violence is revealed, so is the identity of the victim. Thus, for example, the October 6 issue of Informer included an article headlined Drunkard Pimps Out Sick Daughter to His Friends, with a detailed identification of the suspect (a lot of information about his life), but also a photograph of the building in which the unfortunate girl lives! Once again, not only did the journalists not work in the public interest and, contrary to standards, revealed the suspect’s identity, but they also ruined the victim’s life.

It is also interesting to note that Serbian media have equally little mercy on victims, on the dead. It has already become a tradition that the media attend the funerals of tragically killed people, from where they report in great detail – even though that serves no public interest at all and even though it is in violation of the provisions on empathy toward the relatives of the victims, or on preserving the dignity of the victim, the media consumers were thoroughly informed about the color of coffins, the objects placed inside the coffins, the eulogies, the content of lamentation of the people gathered at the funerals, the list of relatives who had fainted due to grief and stress. In decent media all of that is strictly forbidden, while a limited right to reporting exists only in the event of death of a public figure.

Speaking of funerals, the potentially most interesting case of the year in terms of ethics was certainly the funeral of Zrenjanin citizen Milos Kockar on May 3: the man who became “famous” among the general public solely owing to the fact that at the time of his death his daughter had been on the Zadruga (Co-op) reality show on Pink TV. On that day, Pink TV owner Zeljko Mitrovic reached Olympian heights of media shamelessness, took a step toward the unthinkable and – organized live coverage of the funeral! Not only were the Pink viewers able to watch the coffin and listen to the lamentation and speeches at the funeral of a completely unknown man, but they also watched an interview with the deceased man’s daughter and her husband, also a participant in the reality show, outside the cemetery gates. Although this act violated the European Convention on Human Rights, the Serbian Journalists’ Code of Ethics and the Regulatory Authority for Electronic Media Rulebook on Human Rights Protection in the Area of Providing Media Services, the unofficial spokesperson of the Regulatory Authority, Olivera Zekic, noted that there had been no violation. “There is no law prohibiting live coverage of funerals and I believe it has been that way since Tito’s funeral. You should check that with the Danas owners, because most of them were members of the [Communist] Party at the time and cried while they watched the broadcast. And as some important individuals happened to die after Tito, not just members of reality show participants’ families, I firmly believe that the law has not changed,” she told Danas, in a style she became particularly known for in 2018.

SUICIDES, MURDERS AND MEDIA CRIMES

Although suicides, especially of young people, are extremely interesting to the media – this past year showed that in such situations not only do the media step over the boundaries of decency, public interest and the Journalists’ Code, but also of basic human empathy. Detailed reports on possible reasons, suicide notes and even methods of suicide all reached their notorious peak in the case of suicide of TV show host and model Marija Curcic. The level of interest was understandable: Marija was a public figure, a “city girl,” exceptionally beautiful and, by all traditional standards, “a person who had no problems.” Nevertheless, the comprehensive reports on her private life, relationships and family life, as well as descriptions of the act itself, the coffin and the people gathered at the funeral – were too much even for someone with a strong media stomach.

In 2018 beauty was again one of the main “red flags” in the eyes of the raging tabloid bulls: there certainly would not have been such and so many reports on Marija Curcic if she hadn’t been immensely beautiful and famous, just like the tragic death of eight-year-old Anabela Donkic would not have been covered as much if she, too, had not been angelically beautiful. The child drowned in the Danube and the media rushed not to leave a single detail of not only her life, but also the lives of her immediate family and relatives veiled in mystery: all the conjecture and gossip about their property and assets, relations within the family, the father who took care of her, and then the inevitable coffin, were of course illustrated with a photograph of the child and an emphasis on her physical appearance. It is, of course, redundant to even mention on how many levels that is wrong, how sexist, discriminatory, cruel and shameless it is.

In that context, the case that has attracted an incredible amount of attention for the third year in a row is certainly the case of murdered singer Jelena Marjanovic. After hundreds of front pages that labeled members of her family as the unquestionable killers; after dozens of articles that brutally violated the privacy of her six-year-old child; after unbelievable assumptions, the public arrest of her husband etc., 2018 will be remembered as the year in which a photograph of her dead body at the crime scene was published for the first time, and then many times afterwards. That means – the photograph of a bloody body, with the details zoomed in. Aside from being the most severe possible violation of the right to dignity of the victim (Journalists’ Code, Chapter 4, item 5), it is also marked as disturbing content (Chapter 4, item 4), but also as memorable shamelessness and an impermissible “information leak” (because these are not newspaper photographs, but rather images from the investigation which should never have ended up in the media).

It is difficult, practically impossible, to say with complete certainty whether the media ethics in Serbia is a victim of the political atmosphere and the general state of the media, or if its demise and the lowering of all hitherto known professional standards is just one of the segments of the all-encompassing media catastrophe.

That might not even be relevant to this story: what is far more important is that the collapsed professional standards, sporadic observation of the Serbian Journalists’ Code of Ethics and the increasingly brazen reporting are not something that can be “cured” on its own, through the mere change of political atmosphere.

If and when the multiple pressures on the media cease, if and when there are no physical attacks on and constant threats to journalists, if and when the freedom of speech and media is restored here – we will find ourselves in a position where entire generations of journalists no longer know how to report in line with the Code and standards, where readers no longer find in ethically correct media content the “excitement” they’ve grown used to, where the majority of society has in fact become media “illiterate.” And that is something journalists and their trade associations, as well as media experts, should seriously deal with. Otherwise, we will live in a world which only Pink TV and the tabloids Alo, Srpski Telegraf, Informer and the like report on.

This article has been produced as a part of the project Western Balkan’s Regional Platform for advocating media freedom and journalists’ safety with the financial assistance of the European Union. The contents of this article are the sole responsibility of the Independent Journalists’ Association of Serbia and its authors, and can in no circumstances be regarded as reflecting the position of the European Union.

SKOPJE, 29.12.2018 – The year 2018 turns out to be the year with fewer complaints for institutional transparency compared to the data of the Committee’s reports on the protection of the right to free access to public information compiled for 2015, 2016, 2017.

Specifically, by the beginning of September, the number of complaints filed was over  150, while in 2015, 2016 and 2017 the number of complaints was higher, respectively 960, 619 and 758.

At first glance, data for 2018 looks promising about the transparency of the institutions, although they are not final. It should be considered that the committee filing appeals about 2/3 of the year have not had, and continues to not have quorum for holding the meeting. From this point of view, the low number of submitted complaints is not necessarily an indication that during this year we had more transparent institutions than before.

The ministry responsible for communications, accountability and transparency refers to an international research supported by the European Union, according to which Macedonia for 2018 ranks as the most transparent in the region.

“The Government of the Republic of Macedonia is the first country in the region in terms of transparency, according to the international research “Action see”, supported by the European Union, where the index of transparency of institutions in Macedonia, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Serbia and Montenegro. In the same survey, last year, Macedonia was at the bottom of the list, concretely in the 6th place. In the same survey, last year, Macedonia was at the bottom of the list, concretely in the 6th place. Much progress has also been noted in the ministries which from the last country in the last year’s survey are now in the third place, after Montenegro and Serbia,” said the Ministry responsible for communications, accountability and transparency.

By making a comparison of the reports published by the Committee on the Protection of the Right to Free Access to Public Information from 2015, a clearer picture is obtained of how the level of institutional transparency has moved.

In 2015, when VMRO-DPMNE and DUI were in power, the most complaints were for ministries such as: Transport and Communications, Education and Science, Local Self-Government, Health, Culture, Labor and Social Policy, Justice, the Anti-Corruption Commission and the Assembly of the Republic of Macedonia, as well as some public enterprises.

In 2017, when the country had a new government promising that state institutions would be more transparent during its governance, the number of submitted complaints was 758. So, only 202 complaints less than in 2015 when under governance was VMRO-DPMNE and DUI, and 139 more complaints than in 2016, when the previous government was in power.

Years with the highest number of complaints can be seen as greater awareness of citizens about their right to be informed, but they can also be seen as indicators of lower transparency of the institutions.

The explanation given by the ministry for these figures is that the provision of information for all citizens has flooded public institutions with requests for free access and in such a situation they did not have sufficient staff. Consequently, they have not been able to respond in time to all requests.

“The increase in the number of complaints submitted to the Committee for Free Access to Public Information for 2017 is due to the Government’s decision to increase transparency and make it accessible to citizens for all information, besides security concerns, institutions have faced a high number of free access requests because after a decade of closure and lack of transparency and access to the institutions, information was finally available to all citizens. Late responses to the many requests for free access have been caused by restrictions on human resources and not by non-transparency of the institutions,” say the minister’s cabinet without responsibility for communication, transparency and accountability, Robert Popovski.

In 2017, the institutions considered as non-transparent are: Municipalities of the Republic of Macedonia and the City of Skopje, Ministry of Health, HealthCare Centres, Public Enterprises, Inter-municipal Social Work Centers, Ministry of Economy, Ministry of Finance, Energy Regulatory Committee etc.

The Ministry of Finance is the name of the institution that appears to be non-transparent in all three reports, in 2015, 2016 and 2017.

During 2017, according to the Committee’s report on free access to information of a public nature, institutions did not provide information on public procurement, election and appointment vacancies, list of foreign investment information, number of applicants and winners of IPARD programs, net salaries of state officials and members of councils, amounts paid for road expense for managing persons and commission members, data on salaries and fees paid to Public Prosecutor’s Offices for prosecution of related criminal offenses from illegal content of tracking communications and so on.

From the Cabinet of Minister Popovski, these data are placed opposite these answers:

“Public Procurement Agreements in the “e-nabavki” system began to be announced for the first time in 2017. Institutions were obliged not only to publish public procurement but also complete documentation for the conclusion of agreements, including those that have financial implications.”

“As for the competitions for nominations and elections, taking into consideration that 2017 was the year of elections, on 31 May 2017 the new government was formed and local elections were held, at the time of the announcement of the elections there was a limitation of the employments competitions. In the period before and after the local elections, all competitions have been published in accordance with the core laws for separate functions. Within the competences all the acts for election and appointments have been published in the Official Newspaper.”

“The list of foreign investment information in accordance with the law on financial support will be published when the entire payment process for companies with a valid agreement is completed, which is expected to take place by the end of this year.

From this ministry further say that the institutions have been transparent also for the other points mentioned above.

They even add that to increase transparency, the Prime Minister, ministers and the general secretary of the government have been published on the official website of the Government. Meanwhile, in order to have more details about the current year, we demanded an official response from the Committee on Protection of Free Access to Public Information.

This Committee told us that such information cannot be provided, since more precisely the same ones are processed after being reviewed at committee sessions, which since May has no quorum, so it is blocked.

This fact, according to some journalists, has partially affected them not to submit complaints even when they have been concerned about certain institutions when the latter did not respond in time or at all and did not provide the required information.

Vasko Magleshov, MakFax

“Yes. Surely, so far, we have more than five complaints submitted to the Commission for the Protection of the Right to Free Access to Public Information.”

Goran Momiroski, Alfa Tv

“No, I did not send.”

Tamara Çausidis, BIRN

“We have sent until the Commission is functioning, but now you cannot see it, because there is no quorum, but the services also try to help in such situations.”

Ismail Sinani, Tv Shenja

“No, we did not send, but we have publicly appealed to DUI officials to have a transparent approach.”

According to them, the most problematic institutions of 2018 were:

Vasko Magleshov, MAKFAX

“I would mention the Public Prosecutor, Ombudsman, but there are even others.”

Goran Momiroski, Alfa Tv

“I would like to mention the Ministry of Foreign Affairs”.

Tamara Çausidis, BIRN

“From the experience I say, public enterprises take the process of responding slower. I will mention, for example, Radio Television of Macedonia”.

Ismail Sinani, Tv Shenja

“We have faced the problem of transparency with the Democratic Union for Integration and the institutions run by the representatives of this party, so the problem exists only in this political party.”

Complaints have nothing to do with not giving information. Frequently the answers are cliché and superficial.

Vasko Magleshov – MAKFAX

“They do not always answer in time. When it comes to simple answers, they response quickly, but sometimes they cite laws, not answering the question specifically. For example, I asked for information from the Electronic Communications Agency about how much money was spent on salaries and fees and sent me a citation of the law for ECA. In response it was said that they are data that ECA is obliged to submit to the Assembly.”

Goran Momiroski – Alfa TV

“They usually answer, but not always quickly and completely. They often avoid direct response. For example, on September 30 I asked Zoran Zaev if he would resign as promised if the referendum would not be successful and he said the referendum was successful.”

Tamara Çausidis – BIRN

“There are institutions that respond relatively in time in accordance with the deadline. As an example, I would recently receive the Ministry of Culture, the City of Skopje and the Government. Institutions respond timely, because the request is submitted with the appropriate document. If a question is raised that implies a political opinion or attitude, then it does not refer to information of a public character.”

Ismail Sinani – TV SHENJA

“If, until several years ago, institutions issued communications or announcements, with the advancement of PR techniques, they now prepare textual, video and photo news that they send to the media. So at first glance, this looks like transparency, but in essence this is more like a powerful outreach that institutions make to the media. It should be noted that for four years, the institutions run by the Democratic Union for Integration, whether in the governing coalition with VMRO DPMNE, or now with SDSM, are closed. Understandable is that sometimes there is a small exception.”

The 30-day deadline that the law (Article 21 Law on Free Access to Public Information) has made available to institutions to respond, according to editors and journalists this is too long. They say that this article should be changed, so it should be no more than 10 days.

Vasko Magleshov-MAKFAX

“Absolutely the deadline should be shorter, not more than 10 days.”

Goran Momiroski- Alfa TV

“Of course, the deadline should not be longer than 5 days.”

Tamara Çausidis-BIRN

“Yes. I consider that the deadline should be shorter than 30 days.”

Ismail Sinani- TV SHENJA

“However, it can and should be shorter, but practices in the European Union must also be seen.”

These were some of the data we could collect for 2018 in the absence of official data or the final report of the Committee for the Protection of the Right to Free Access to Public Information.

As far as the above-mentioned commission is concerned, the same one already has only one member and the mayor. After the May 2, 2018 resignation of the Chairman Gjorgji Slamkov, only Blerim Hyseni and Valentina Fidanovska are members of this committee.

This situation was best explained by the recently elected chairman of this committee.

Blerim Hyseni – Chairman of the Committee for the Protection of the Right to Free Access to Public Information.

“The recent meeting of the Commission on the protection of the right to free access to public information was held on 16 April and since then there was no quorum for holding the meeting and reviewing the complaints, while the parliament found the resignation of the chairman on May 2nd this year. Otherwise, two members of the Committee have not been appointed for a long time (but the committee has functioned as chairman, deputy chairperson and a member) by a simple majority and has had the legal right to decide on the cases.”

To be informed when it is expected that the Assembly will fill the vacancies, for which the names are proposed by the Government and then submitted to the legislature, we tried to contact the chairman of the Committee on Election and Appointment Issues. Ironically, although this text is dedicated to institutional transparency, VMRO-DPMNE deputy Ilija Dimovski, also chairman of this committee, had several questions available for weeks, but he did not want to response, neither in writing nor oral.

The Macedonian Parliament’s services informed us that the committee session was held on 18.10.2018, but it was decided only for the appointment of the chairman, but not for the members. Blerim Hyseni from the post of deputy chairman, was appointed chair of the Committee for the Protection of the Right to Free Access to Public Information. However, this does not solve the problem, because the committee already has a chairman, but there is still no quorum. Meanwhile, two members of this committee have never been appointed.

This activity is part of the project titled “Western Balkan’s Regional Platform for advocating media freedom and journalists’ safety” and funded by the European Union. The content of the publication is the sole responsibility of the AJM and in no way can be considered to reflect the views of the European Union.

Author: Evi Shkopi

BELGRADE, 28.12.2018. – Serbia is maintaining its infamous rank in the region as the country in which journalists’ safety is most endangered, the data from comparative analysis conducted by the Regional Platform for advocating media freedom and journalists’ safety reveal.

As critics of the authorities in public interest, journalists in Serbia are facing daily pressures, insults, threats and attacks. The fact that all of these most often come from highest state officials is creating an atmosphere where violence against journalists is not only allowed, but welcomed.

The data of the analysis conducted between September 1, 2017 and August 31, 2018 in Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH), Kosovo, Macedonia and Montenegro, show that Serbia is a black champion in the region with 28 registered verbal and physical attacks on journalists and the highest cases of pressures.

Independent Journalists Association of Serbia (NUNS) registered 69 cases of political and economic pressures on journalists in 2018, the number doubled compared to 2016. Government increased administrative pressures on critical media, sending tax inspections to extensively control independent media, while state officials have been filing number of defamation lawsuits with an aim to financially exhaust newsrooms. In 2018, journalists have been intimidated, libeled as “traitors and foreign mercenaries” and ignored for invitation for official, relevant press conferences or events.

Kosovo is ranked second with registered 23 verbal and physical attacks, it is followed by Bosnia with 21, Montenegro with seven and Macedonia with six. In BiH and Montenegro there were also attempts to murder journalists, while two journalists in Macedonia and one in Kosovo have been arrested.

In all five countries verbal attacks are the most common forms of attacks. In Serbia there were 21 such cases. Journalists most commonly receive threats via social media, where people are sending them the most direct death threats. These threats in largest number of cases remain unresolved. In Serbia, out of 21 cases, only one was resolved and a perpetrator was sent to obligatory psychiatric treatment.

Beta news agency’s editor-in-chief, Dragan Janjic, received hundreds of comments on social media. It all began with his Twitter comment regarding the assassination of politician Oliver Ivanovic. That provoked “angry” reaction of Serbian president Aleksandar Vucic, who assessed on a news conference that Janjic accused Serbia for that murder. That was the trigger for an avalanche of verbal threats on social media, for example, “Take him to Kalemegdan and shoot (him) in the head”. The prosecutor’s office dismissed the most of criminal complaints as unfounded, saying that their content doesn’t reflect “direct, clear and serious threat”. In all five countries, impunity for crimes against journalists is prevailing. It is ever more noticeable in Serbia, which formally made the greatest progress in establishing mechanism for protection of journalists. An agreement establishing cooperation between police, prosecution and seven media associations was signed at December 2016. The agreement improved cooperation between institution and journalists’ associations. Standing Working Group was composed with a role to improve the protection of journalists and to monitor and encourage the efficiency of the state institutions.

However, the agreement has failed to create safer environment for journalists in practice. The associations of journalists have ceased their participation in the group, stating they were not satisfied with its work, highlighting the fact that Public Prosecution refused to file criminal charges for the six attacks on journalists during the presidential inauguration in 2017.  The Independent Journalists’ Association of Serbia has been analyzing the efficiency of judicial authorities in cases of assaults on journalists. According to that analysis during the period from January 1, 2016, until September 1, 2018, journalists’ associations of the region registered a total of 58 physical assaults against journalists, and in less than half of those cases (23) judicial proceedings were filed. Only 11 verdicts were ruled in favor of journalists.

Journalists Association of Kosovo has made some steps to improve safety of journalists in cooperation with State Prosecution Office that has assigned prosecutors in charged to work on cases regarding journalists in five centers across the country. While the number of attacks remained lower only when compared to Serbia, one of positive signs was the fact that police raised charged against South Mitrovica mayor, Agim Bahtiri, for threatening and insulting journalist Shkumbin Kajtazi. The court case is still open.

The countries of the region are failing to close cases open for decades and none of the murders of journalists that happen in the last two decades have been resolved. In Kosovo, eight journalists were killed between 1998 and 2005, and six are still missing. In Serbia, the murders of three journalists are still ongoing. The murder of journalist Radoslavka Dada Vujasinovic from 1995 and of journalist Milan Pantic from 2001 are both still in pre-trial proceedings. The trial only started in a murder case of journalist Slavko Curuvija, killed in 1999. The trial against former security service officers, charged for Curuvija murder, opened in 2015 and the first-instance verdict is expected to be delivered within first few months of 2019. Montenegro sentenced one person as an accomplice to the murder of Dusko Jovanovic, editor-in-chief of the newspaper Dan, who was killed in 2004, but perpetrators and masterminds of the murder remain unidentified.

Serbia formed a Commission for solving cases of killed journalists, and in August 2018, the Government extended the competences of the Commission allowing it to review the investigations into murders and disappearances of journalists that happened between 1998 and 2001 in Kosovo, and into the murders of journalists during the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia, between 1991 and 1995. Although the Commission made some progress, the police and the prosecutors haven’t made any steps forward following new information in the case of Milan Pantic murder.

Montenegro has also established the Commission for monitoring the investigations of attacks on journalists and media whose mandate was extended for two more years. In past years, the Commission has identified a number of shortcomings during investigations of 15 monitored cases.

The Association of Journalists of Macedonia (AJM), as well as other credible member based organizations in the media sphere assessed that Macedonia is the only country in Western Balkans that has certain level of improvement in 2018 on the issues of violence against journalists. The number of threats against journalists  decreased threefold from 18 in 2017 to six in 2018. This was mainly a result  of AJM efforts, but also the fact that the political climate improved and the Ministry of Interior become more efficient in their investigations. In addition, the national court in Skopje had the first verdict in a case where two journalists were attacked on the main square in Skopje in 2016 and for this the perpetrators are sentenced to 6 months in prison. This is the only prison sentence for an attack against journalists ever recorded. However, more than 50 cases from the last five years still remain unresolved. The prosecution of violence against journalists has still not brought visible results and the ongoing cases have a limited progress in front of the Public Prosecutors Office in Skopje, while in some of the cases where journalists were threatened or attacked there is no progress at all.

Journalists’ fear that the climate of impunity and intimidation would lead to new and brutal attacks turned justified in Serbia. In December 2018, two Molotov cocktails were thrown at the house of journalist Milan Jovanovic setting it ablaze. Jovanovic who wrote critically about the authorities in his municipality survived the attack. The case is not treated as an attempt of murder, but as “causing general danger”. Three people were arrested. Media and journalists claimed that Serbian judiciary showed unwillingness to protect journalists, after Bojana Cvetkovic Sijacki, who admitted that she helped perpetrators during the attack on Jovanovic, concluded an agreement with the Prosecutor’s Office and was sentenced to six months of house arrest and a fine of 50,000 dinars.

All associations of journalists in the region pointed out to mild penalty policies, but also on declarative and sporadic convictions of public officials. They generally remain silent on violence, showing that they do not support and do not understand the role of journalists.

Both tabloid and pro-government media in Serbia regularly omit to condemn the violence, while some are even openly attacking and targeting independent journalists. Newspaper “Ilustorovana politika” compared journalists with angry dogs on its front page, picturing next to such headline the president of the Commission for the Investigation of the Murder of Journalists Veran Matic and journalist Ljiljana Smajlovic who were in the article described as thieves and traitors.

In order to fight for their rights and security, journalists protested in the streets of Belgrade, Sarajevo and Podgorica. These rallies however have not managed to improve public officials’ behavior, nor the atmosphere in societies where journalists remain to be perceived as legitimate targets.

*This title is without prejudice as to the status and is in line with the UN Security Council Resolution 1244 and the opinion of the International Court of justice on the declaration of independence of Kosovo.

This article has been produced as a part of the project Western Balkan’s Regional Platform for advocating media freedom and journalists’ safety with the financial assistance of the European Union. The contents of this article are the sole responsibility of the Independent Journalists’ Association of Serbia and its authors, and can in no circumstances be regarded as reflecting the position of the European Union.

BEOGRAD, 28.12.2108. – Regionalna platforma Zapadnog Balkana za zagovaranje medijskih sloboda i bezbednosti novinara koja zastupa više od 8000 članova, najoštrije osuđuje ozbiljne pretnje i poruke mržnje upućene srpskoj novinarki Tatjani Vojtehovska i njenoj ćerki.

Novinarka i autorka emisije Tatjana Vojtehovski javno je komentarisala proteste građana na ulicama Beograda protiv aktuelne vlasti. Njene javne reakcije izazvale su novi talas pretnji putem društvenih mreža, uključujući i gnusne pretnje smrću upućene njoj i njenoj kćeri.

Nezavisno udruženje novinara Srbije (NUNS) obavestilo je nadležne organe o incidentu 27.12.2018. godine, a Vojtehovski je dala izjavu policiji, Odeljenju za visokotehnološki kriminal. Neke od pretnji je objavila na svom Tviter nalogu. Obraćajući se predsedniku republike Aleksandru Vučiću, ona je izjavila da su takve pretnje direktan rezultat njegove retorike i da se on mora suočiti sa tim.

“Ovo nije prvi put da se Vojtehovska suočava sa takvim pretnjama – u maju 2018. godine jedan čovek je uhapšen, ali to očigledno nije sprečilo nove pretnje” – rekao je Slaviša Lekić, predsednik NUNS-a. “Izjava Vojtehovske upućena predsedniku Vučiću najglasnije upozorava: najviši zvaničnici moraju učiniti apsolutno sve što je u njihovoj moći kako bi sprečili stvaranje otrovne atmosfere u društvu, a ne da je ohrabruju.”

Regionalna platforma zahteva od nadležnih organa Republike Srbije da odmah preduzmu sve zakonske mere protiv lica koji su pretila Tatjani Vojtehovski i njenoj ćerki i preduzmu sve neophodne mere da ih zaštite. Platforma poziva najviše javne zvaničnike Republike Srbije da javno i nedvosmisleno osude pretnje i poruke mržnje prema Vojtehovskoj i drugim novinarima i da se suprotstave atmosferi mržnje prema novinarima u srpskom društvu.

Istovremeno, pozivamo međunarodne organizacije da izvrše dodatni pritisak na vlasti u Srbiji da poštuju slobodu izražavanja i slobodu medija i da osiguraju bezbednost novinara.

U 2018. godini Srbija je zabeležila 98 incidenata, 7 fizičkih napada, 21 verbalnih pretnji, dok je NUNS zabeležio 70 drugih vrsta pritisaka na novinare.

Svaki napad na novinara je napad na javni interes, demokratiju i prava svih građana.

Skoplje – Beograd – Podgorica – Priština – Sarajevo – Zagreb

Udruženje/udruga BiH novinari
Sindikat medija Crne Gore
Hrvatsko novinarsko društvo
Udruženje novinara Kosova
Društvo novinara Makedonije
Nezavisno udruženje novinara Srbije