Popović ponovo nije došao na suđenje, sudija upozorio na posledice

03/12/2018

nenad-popovic-medija-centar-0604-2016-2 — ????????????????????????????????????

BEOGRAD, 03.12.2018. – Ministar bez portfelja Nenad Popović ponovo se nije pojavio na suđenju novinarima KRIK-a po jednoj od njegove četiri tužbe, pa je ročište odloženo. Ministrovi advokati su i danas, kao i prethodna tri puta, sudu dostavili dopis Vlade Srbije u kojem piše da je on na službenom putovanju u Rusiji. Sudija je upozorio Popovićeve advokate da bi postupak mogao biti završen ako se opet ne pojavi.

Sud je danas trebalo da sasluša Popovića u postupku koji se protiv novinara KRIK-a vodi zbog teksta „Netačno da Popović nema ofšor firme“, međutim, pošto su njegovi advokati sudu dostavili dopis Vlade Srbije da je ministar u poseti Rusiji, suđenje je odloženo za februar.

Urednik KRIK-a Stevan Dojčinović, koji je trebalo da bude saslušan na istom ročištu kad i Popović, pojavio se u sudnici.

Ovo je drugi put u ovom postupku da se Popović nije pojavio na zakazanom suđenju. On nije prisustvovao suđenjima u još dva postupka koji se takođe protiv novinara KRIK-a vode zbog njegovih tužbi. Razlog je uvek isti – službena poseta Rusiji.

Sudija Slobodan Keranović rekao je danas Popovićevim advokatima da ga upozore na posledice njegovog nepojavljivanja, odnosno da bi postupak mogao biti završen.

Tužba po kojoj je trebalo da se održi današnje suđenje odnosi se na tekst u kom je KRIK preneo deo Popovićevog saopštenja i reagovao na njegove tvrdnje da ne poseduje firme u ofšor zonama.

Podsetimo, Popović je tužio KRIK četiri puta zbog objavljenog istraživanja i pratećih tekstova o njegovom bogatstvu i ofšor firmama. Svakom tužbom zatražio je naknadu od milion dinara za povredu ugleda i duševnu bol, ali se nijednom nije pojavio na sudu kako bi bio saslušan.

Kao deo međunarodnog projekta „Rajski Papiri“ novinari KRIK-a došli su do dokumentacije koja je procurila iz advokatske kancelarije „Appleby“ koja se bavi osnivanjem ofšor kompanija. Tako je otkriveno da Popović poseduje poslove i imovinu vredne više od 100 miliona američkih dolara, da ima prijavljeno boravište u Švajcarskoj gde plaća poreze, kao i da kontroliše kompanije registrovane u ofšor zonama.

Popović je odbio da razgovara sa novinarima KRIK-a pre objavljivanja priče, a KRIK podseća da je sve što je objavljeno potkrepljeno zvaničnom dokumentacijom, kao i da su „Rajski papiri“ međunarodni projekat u kom je učestvovalo 96 medijskih organizacija iz 67 zemalja.

AJK reacts on threats against journalist by a public official

AJK

02/12/2018

PRISTINA, 02.12.2018 – The Association of Journalists of Kosovo condemns the threat and banal language of Avni Olluri, director of administration at Lipjan municipality, against journalist Agim Ademi.

AJK is concerned to receive a telephone conversation in which Olluri threatened the journalists asking from him not to deal with him.

“I am telling you: don’t deal with me because I don’t owe anyone my political carrier and this has to be clear to you. But if it comes to that I can easily remove the tie and resign. But then I will deal with you and stand on your way,” Olluri told Ademi via telephone.

According to Ademi, officials from Lipjan municipality many times made pressures and blackmails to him in order to back him off from articles related to local governance.

In this telephone call to journalist, Olluri used banal and denigrating language.

AJK condemns the threat and the language used by municipal official against the journalist and calls on Olluri to distance himself from this stance and apologise publicly to Ademi.

AJK reminds Olluri that in case he has complains on Ademi’s articles, he should follow legal ways but in no way to use threatening language against the journalist.

The Association of Journalists of Kosovo encourages journalists not to stand back from such threats while the cases of threats should be reported to police and to Association.

CJA welcomes VEM penality but asks for tougher measures for hate speech in media

CJA

01/12/2018

ZAGREB, 1.12.2018. – Croatian Journalists’ Association (CJA) welcomes VEM’s (Electronic Media Council) temporary withdrawal of concessions due to hate speech for TV publishers that on November 5, 2018 broadcasted TV show ”Bujica”. But CJA also expresses its discontent as it finds the measure to be too bland regarding inappropriate content of the show.

The show that was supposed to discuss political and security aspects of migrant crisis actually called for hate and violence against migrants. By doing so the show additionally stigmatized and fan the flames of anti-migrant hysteria in public.

VEM found that publishers violated Article 12, section 2 of Law on electronic media, according to which „it is not permitted to encourage, help encouraging and disseminate hate based on race or ethnicity or skin color, gender, language, political or any other belief, nationality or social status“ by audio-visual services, CJA finds the respond to that show should have been far more strict.

Namely, VEM temporarily withdraw the concession to Z1 TV, Osječka and Baranjska TV for 24 hours and to Srce TV, Adriatic TV and Jadran TV for 4 hours.

CJA reminds that VEM in January 2016 withdraw the concession temporarily for 3 days due to hate speech in show „Marko’s Square“ but that did not prevent the publisher to get public funds from the Fund for promoting pluralism and diversity through electronic media from the very same VEM.

CJA calls upon VEM, being the body that monitors implementation of Law on electronic media, to be quicker in reactions to more and more frequent hate speech in media. It also invites VEM to break the silence about the fact that existing Law on electronic media does not give adequate legal frame for VEM to sanction hate speech in media and to put pressure on legislator, together with CJA and public, to determine specific and severe legal sanctions for dissemination of hate speech in media.

CJA also regretfully notices that in all cases of hate speech the State Attorney did not have any reaction.

CJA invites all colleagues to follow the law and the Code of Honor of Croatian journalists, to be professional when reporting on migrant crisis and to be sensitive to all attempts of spreading disinformation or fake news that aim to encourage intolerance against people in need.

Impunity incites attacks on journalists

AJK

30/11/2018

PRISTINA, 30.11.2018 – Physical attacks and threats towards the Kosovan journalists have become frequent. These instances are not a major priority for the justice institutions, whilst the few verdicts that have been reached in the court towards the threats have only been fines of 300 – 500 euros. In such a situation, it is necessary for the legislation that defends journalists to be reviewed.

The attacks towards journalists in Kosovo have increased in the recent years. The threats but also the promoters of these threats are mainly politicians, businessmen and other groups of common interests. The inefficiency of the system of justice is contributing to the rise of this trend.

Serbeze Haxhiaj, who has been working as a journalist for 20 years, is amongst the journalists who have been threatened the most in Kosovo. She has been investigating on various topics and consequently has been threatened multiple times with the purpose of intimidating her and compelling her to abandon the investigative journalism she was conducting.

The journalist Haxhiaj says that she cannot remember the number of the threats she received in the entirety of her career, whilst she has only reported the last five ones to the police. She declares that these threats have had an impact on her work and have made her feel insecure for she had to always be prepared for any upcoming risk.

“Nevertheless, I do not think that these threats have inhibited my commitment to work on topics that are classified as rather sensitive in the journalism environment in Kosovo.” – says Haxhiaj.

She highlights that in such instances, the journalists’ insecurity affects his/her family as well. Haxhiaj says that her son has not felt right about the idea that his mother has been working in an insecure and threatening environment. In one instance, her son has also been a subject of insecurity and as a result, he had to be accompanied to go to school.

“I see that this has had a negative impact on him for he is often times frightened that I might not be in a secured place.” – declares Haxhiaj.

She adds that she did not have a good experience with the police in regards to the way they treated her threat reports. The journalist Haxhiaj says that in some cases the investigations have professionally been conducted by the police, but there have also been cases of abuse by the policemen who have intervened to change the facts upon the case.

“In general, I think that the court has been neglectful on solving these cases towards the journalists, just as it has been neglectful with every other case.” – says Haxhiaj.

She is currently waiting the epilogue of the police investigations related to the case when her car had been painted with a red color twice during the month of March of this year. As far as she is concerned, some things have been cleared out that will result towards the solving of this case.

“I want to believe that the epilogue will be righteous.” – says Haxhiaj.

With regard to this matter, the Information Office at the Police of Kosovo declared that investigations have been conducted but they have failed to come up with any suspect or witness, whereas the location where the car had been scratched twice does not possess any security camera.

The police have processed the case to the prosecutor but this has only happened the day they have replied to us after noticing our interest shown upon this case. The questions for this case have been addressed to the Information Office of the Police of Kosovo on November 19^th, 2018.

“Due to the inability to identify a suspect, the investigator of the case has converted the pro forma to an actual case and on the 27^th of November, 2018, this case has been processed to the prosecutor against N.N. persons.” – is stated on the reply of the Information Office at the Police of Kosovo.

The working place often appears to be a threat for journalists

According to the investigative report “The Media’s Indicators 2015” which is based on the journalists’ perspective upon freedom and conditions of media in Kosovo, journalists declare that the environment where they work is a threat to them and improper response is provided by the police to defend them. Within the framework of this investigation, 175 journalists have been interviewed. The ethnicity of the respondents based on the selected sample has consisted of 81% Albanians, 14% Serbians and the other minorities have been represented by 5%.

In the question whether the journalists are threatened of physical violence while working, 22% answered “Totally”, 62% answered “Yes, to a certain degree”; 10% “No, to a certain degree”; and 6% answered “Not at all”.

In the question whether the police protects journalists when it is needed, 14% of the respondents answered with “Totally”; 56% “Yes, to a certain degree”; 19% “No, to a certain degree”; and 11% answered with “Not at all”.

On the other hand, in the question whether the justice institutions treat cases of threats towards journalists adequately, 7% of the respondents answered with “Totally”; 46% “Yes, to a certain degree”; 27% “No, to a certain degree”; and 20% answered with “Not at all”.

Meanwhile, the data obtained from the Association of Journalists of Kosovo shows that apart from physical attacks and threats, in the recent years there have also been attacks towards the journalists’ property and the media.

The number of physical assaults and threats towards journalists through years

Year	Physical assaults	Threats	Property damage		Arbitrary arrest	Imprisoning
Year	Physical assaults	Threats	Of journalists	Of media	Arbitrary arrest	Imprisoning
2014	6	9
2015	1	12		1
2016	2	8	2	1	2
2017	3	19	1			1
November 2018	2	11	1

Source: AJK

The cases of physical attacks and threats have not been treated properly

Flutura Kusari, legalist on the media’s scope, says that one of the most frequent reasoning of the Prosecutor and the Police in regards to why they do not take action on finding the threats of journalists is that the journalists do not report these cases.

She says that the issue is not a journalist who does not report, but rather the Prosecutor towards whom journalists have lost their trust. Kusari says that even for the cases that have been reported, the investigations have not been rightly conducted.

“How can journalists, for instance, go report the case to the Prosecutor when they do not trust the Prosecutor?” – says Kusari.

She says that the cases of assaults and threats towards journalists shall not be treated in the same level as those done towards a common citizen, but adds that in accordance with the Penal Code separate penal acts shall be set against the threats towards journalists. According to Kusari, this would affect the case in two different aspects.

“On the first aspect, the conviction among the society would spread as one will be condemned higher if one threats a journalist. On the second aspect, it can be observed that cases that have to do with journalists are hard to be classified for they fall in the same category as other cases.” – says Kusari.

She says that the matter of statistics is quite problematic not only in Kosovo but in the entire Balkan region, so this would aid on the aspect of classifying the acts towards journalists.

Kusari says that due to the recent increased number of threats towards journalists, it is exceedingly necessary for the legislation that defends journalists to be reviewed.

According to her, it is possible that the Police and the Prosecutor are not trained to handle the cases of journalists and this element on her view is extremely important for it determines the results of the investigations entirely.

“This is certainly related to the criminal prosecutions which ideally would result to a verdict. Now, here’s the other problem with the courts.” – says Kusari.

She says that even in the very few verdicts that have been reached on the cases of threats towards journalists, the suspects have only been sentenced with fines up to 500 euros.

“This provides a poor example in the society on the idea of what happens to the people who threat journalists.” – says Kusari.

The investigations shall also focus on the masterminds of the attack or the threat

Petrit Çollaku, director of the Association of Journalists of Kosovo (AJK) says that the Police and the State’s Prosecution have improved their mechanism on defending journalists. He says that the Basic Court of Prishtina has undertaken an important step with appointing a coordinator that will treat the cases of journalists on criminal and civil matters.

Nevertheless, AJK requires from all these three institutions to be more efficient in order for the link of this chain to work properly, declares Çollaku.

“We have an instance where an indictment towards an official who had threatened a journalist has reached the date of its prescription.” – says Çollaku.

He says that the Police should expand its investigations with the purpose of uncovering who the organizers or the promoters of the assaults towards journalists are.

Çollaku says that this year an indictment has been raised towards a businessman, and a criminal charge has been raised towards the mayor of the municipality of Mitrovica, Agim Bahtiri.

“Both of the journalists have recieved death threats by the two aforementioned persons.” – says Çollaku.

He says that during this year, the Kosovo Courts have treated some cases that include journalists and the media. Lately, the Basic Court of Mitrovica, branch in Vushtrri, has sentenced two people to jail for a physical attack towards a journalist in 2016.

Çollaku says that in the beginning of the year, the Basic Court of Peja has reached a verdict on favor of a journalist who has been a victim of a degrading campaign by a private company. Whereas, the company has been punished with 15.000 euros as a compensation towards the journalist.

According to the data of the Association of Journalists of Kosovo, the Basic Court of Prishtina has treated some civil cases whereas it has rejected three accusations for slander towards media. This court has also reached a verdict in favor of a non-governmental organization in regards to the access on public documents.

Besnik Boletini, 30.11.2018

President vs Journalist: analysis of President Vucic answer to EU Observer

IJAS

30/11/2018

vucic-eu-observer — EU Observer: Vucic response

On November 2, 2018 Matteo Trevisan published an opinion piece for EU Observer portal titled How media freedom in Serbia is under attack. Four days later, the portal published Aleksandar Vucic, president of Serbia response Media freedom in Serbia – President Vucic responds. The president’s response was greeted with disbelief among independent media experts in Serbia, primarily because it contains statements do not reflect Serbia’s reality. In order to bring the topic closer, IJAS produced an analysis of the president’s letter and his statements, countering them with facts.

ALEKSANDAR VUCIC

REALITY

As the president of Serbia I have rarely reacted on media attacks against the country I lead, because I have always, it seems to me, understood well that each different opinion and criticism serve for changing things quickly in our country, for improving ourselves, and for providing normal functioning and full respect for democratic norms and laws. But, I will try – without any passion – to make a rational and decent response to what was written in an opinion piece full of accusations against Serbia in EUobserver on 2 November.

The practice Aleksandar Vucic established while he was an PM – labeling journalists, liars who got the money from [Michael] Davenport [head of the EU delegation in Belgrade] and the EU to speak against the Serbian government, and enemies of the state continued through his presidency: TV N1 was continuously labelled American, including 15 times in the course of a single interview, TV collaborating with drug cartels, with “known criminals convicted of drug trafficking and selling drugs to our children”. In the past 6 months the same TV became Djilas TV. Danas Daily suffered the same criticism as well as other media that report in public interest. Vucic also offends, humiliates and treats journalists with disrespect

His rhetoric is reflected by the Minister of Interior who also called it a CIA TV, Serbian MPs and other state officials. Such rhetoric is further multiplied by MPs who use the Parliament to publicly label specific journalists and media ‘enemies of the state’, ‘foreign agents’, insult and humiliate them thus jeopardizing their safety. In its online database IJAS recorded 78 of cases of public officials attacking the journalists and media since 2016, 27 this year at the moment of closing this text.

Additionally, this is reflected in numerous smear campaigns against media by the state owned or openly pro-gov media the president publicly endorses.

1. It is a complete falsehood that [the] media network became a subject of a disruptive state monopoly – on the contrary, we created a strategy, and – after so many years of so many reforms – we were the first government which, to the greatest extent, renounced its own involvement in media.

The Strategy 2011 – 2016 was indeed created and adopted, however one of the key issues is how it was implemented. As reflected in all major national and international reports, the poor implementation facilitated creation of party (para-state) media through privatisation, with no ownership transparency, closure of the state agency Tanjug and its after-life (see below), distribution of funds to pro-gov media though badly implemented and/or illegal public calls and degradation of the Regulatory Body for Electronic Media.

While the privatisation was implemented poorly, leading to party-media that report in the interest of the ruling party, the state remains a co-owner of Politika (50%) and Vecernje novosti (30%). This includes Ilustrovana Politika that infamously published a front page featuring daily Danas, weeklies NIN and Vreme as ‘dogs unleashed’ and an article featuring them and TV N1 media as ‘frenetically attacking the president of Serbia.’ This prompted international condemnation, but was followed by an attack on journalists Ljiljana Smajlovic in its next edition. In a step assessed as many experts as strengthening its domination over media, on 05.11.2018 it was announced the state owned Telekom Serbia became 100% owner of the Kopernikus Technology, second largest cable operator in Serbia at a disputably large price.

You mention the Tanjug case, the very same agency for which those same independent journalists published an obituary in their newspapers, on the day it was closed regarding the termination of operation of that state agency. Today, when the respective agency operates, speaking the truth, without state support, it’s once again our fault – of the state, government, and mine, as the president.

It would be nice if many in the EU, as well as in Serbia, would agree whether they want us to shut down state-owned media, or they want us to be benevolent towards their work.

Due to failure to privatize Tanjug news agency on November 3, 2015 the Government of Serbia passed the “Decision on the legal consequences of the termination of the Public Company Tanjug News Agency,” signed by the then Prime Minister Aleksandar Vucic. However, Tanjug was never closed – it continued to operate with the financial support of various ministries and state-owned enterprises due to, apparently a legal loophole. Since the the date of the ‘closure’ till the end of 2017, 33 institutions, public companies, and local self-government units paid it 114.4 million dinars.

Replying to the request for information of public importance regarding state financing of Tanjug in 2016, Istinomer portal received the following response from the Ministry of Finance Treasury: “having in mind its magnitude, complexity, structure and content, providing the information (about state financing of Tanjug) would jeopardize the technical processes and lead to (state’s) inability to perform tasks related to the execution of the state budget, budget accounting and reporting, public payments and other duties of state finances, which would result in the fall of performance of the system, lead to overload of the system and jeopardise the security of information system of public finances management and result in the reduction of the country’s ability to manage the economic processes in the country.”

2) The author, Matteo Trevisan, says that physical assaults against journalists are the tip of the iceberg, and I’m asking you: which is the country in the EU that has fewer assaults against journalists than Serbia, not counting brutal assaults of the representatives of the opposition against female journalists of the TV Pink – Goca Uzelac and Mara Dragic? Please, respond me concretely which EU country is the one that had fewer physical assaults against journalists, with concrete data.

The facts that the number of physical assaults on journalists in Serbia is decreasing (and other EU countries may have more such incidents) does not mean that journalists in Serbia feel and are safe while reporting. It shows that the means have changed: IJAS data shows a significant increase in different types of pressures, from threats to publicly naming individual journalists as enemies of Serbia. However, while IJAS doesn’t have access to data in the EU states, its regional database of incidents (assaults, intimidation, attack on property, murders) paints a grim picture – Serbia is the regional leader in intimidation on journalists: since 2014 Serbia recorded 155 incidents (40 physical assaults), BiH 114 (20), Kosovo 83 (14), Macedonia 51 (22), Croatia 46 (17) and Montenegro 32 (4).

IJAS data shows that on 01.09.2018 out of 18 physical attacks in the last three years in only 2 cases perpetrators were sanctioned, while out of 62 recorded cases of intimidation, this happened in only 3 cases.

Attacks on women journalist are a concern and the swift reaction in the case of TV Pink journalists Goca Uzelac and Mara Dragic was initially encouraging. Attacker was quickly identified and court procedure is under way, journalists were visited by Vucic at the hospital and the incident was widely reported by the media. However, initially denied incident at the inauguration day of Aleksandar Vucic against both female and male journalists received authorities’ attention only after media published the photographs of the incidents. It took the prosecutor more than 4 months to identify the attackers, affiliated with the Serbian Progressive Party, while journalists did it much quicker. The prosecution dropped criminal charges, on the grounds that there were no elements of a criminal act. These cases illustrate serious concerns about the selective approach by the authorities when investigating such incidents and existing policy of impunity.

To find out more about 8 intimidated journalists, some of which were almost assassinated, live with 24/7 police protection, are tailed, threatened, beaten up… see IJAS documentary Forcing the Fourth Estate and turn on the subtitles.

3) Trevisan says that pressure is being exerted in various ways, among other things, through numerous court procedures against journalists. I would like to inform you that more than 90 percent of the procedures that were initiated against journalists had taken place upon the requests of opposition leaders, and not of government representatives.

Personally, despite numerous insults, threats and slanders in the past six years, I have never filed a complaint against media and journalists. I believe that, in this way, I demonstrated how we should refer to and what the way for cherishing the differences is.

In the last 4 years IJAS has been unsuccessfully trying to obtain the information about how many court procedures against journalists are being initiated by politicians and state officials. We hope the information will be shared with journalists’ associations. Trends identified so far show that president Vucic was unsuccessful in his demonstration of what the way for cherishing the differences is to his party officials: Minister of the Police, Nebojsa Stefanovic, sued weekly NIN and the portal Pescanik – both media are preparing for Strasbourg. The vice-resident of the Executive Committee of Vucic’s party Branko Malovic sued the columnist of the newspaper Danas and the portal “Pancevo Si Ti”. SNS Deputy Darko Laketic recently sued Juzne vesti portal, Nenad Popovic, a minister without portfolio filed four lawsuits against KRIK over Paradise Papers leaks.

The 2017 case of sentencing Stefan Cvetkovic to 27 months prison sentence and fining him 2.15 million dinars, based on three private criminal charges brought against him by the officials of the ruling SNS attracted international attention and, fortunately, the verdict of the Basic Court in Vrsac was later annulled by the second instance court.

4) Additionally, I want to say that nobody has ever, and in anyway, shut down Vranjske Novine, even though their circulation was small in the market. And they were not facing any kind of pressure.

The case of Vranjske caused international attention – the media was undeniably subjected to months of administrative harassment through tax inspections. Vranjske reported different administrative pressures, but the disputed tax inspections started after it had published an interview with the tax official disclosing wrongdoings at the institution. Vranjske weekly was subjected to different kinds of threats and pressures since its establishment – the premises were burgled three times, the owner’s car damaged twice and threats were sent journalists, the owner and his family. None of the cases were solved, while majority of reported threats were not investigated. At the same time as a result of political pressure companies refrained from advertising in the media, making it impossible for it to operate.

The events prompted Serbia wide support to Vranjske and IJAS requested from the EFJ to organise a fact finding mission with IPI and SEEMO at the beginning of 2018. Please see the Mission recommendations regarding the overall situation regarding media freedoms and safety of journalists here. Regarding an alert posted on the Council of Europe platform, the State responded citing the amounts awarded to Vranjske project proposals and without any reference to the actual events.

It is important to add that the tax authority final report cited no irregularities in the work of, now closed, weekly Vranjske.

The case is similar to Juzne vesti and gives an insight into unfortunate new trends in Serbia,

5) Further, in the article it is said that no solution was reached in cases of Dada Vujasinovic, Slavko Curuvija and Milan Pantic.

Those people were killed 30, 20 and 15 years ago. The so-called democratic ruling power you speak so nicely about, hadn’t moved either of these cases from a standstill.

Despite fighting ghosts from the past, the indictment was raised and the apprehension of the accused is almost finalised.

Three cases of murdered journalists are not solved: Radislava Dada Vujasinovic, Duga magazine journalist (1994), Slavko Curuvija, a journalist, editor-in-chief and the owner of the Dnevni telegraf (1999), and Milan Pantic, the Vecernje novosti correspondent from Jagodina (2001). While two cases are still at a pre-investigative stage, the court proceedings underway in Curuvija case cause concern among family members and journalist community.

Veran Matic, President of the Commission for investigation of murdered journalist stated: “The court shows a clear intention to release those accused of murdering journalist Curuvija”. He considers that the Trial Chamber conducted this case irrationally, that the defence was permitted to obstruct the proceedings, and indicates that many witnesses did not remember their statements made during the investigation in previous years. The court procedures started almost 4 years ago (Vucic became the PM in 2014, President in 2017), Curuvija was murdered in 1999 (Vucic was the Minister of information 1998-2000).

In 2017, Matic announced that the police probe into Pantic murder has at long last been finished, however no steps were taken by relevant authorities. The Vujasinovic case still lingers.

To find out more about how Curuvija and Vujasinovic family feel about the progress of investigations please see these short subtitled clips featuring Jelena Curuvija (Curuvija’s daughter), Branka Prpa (Curuvija’s partner) and Radislav Vujasinovic (Vujasinovic’s father) and Vesna Malisic (Vujasinovic close friend and a colleague).

Also, for almost three years I’ve been listening how killings of journalists would take place in Serbia, and meanwhile journalists were killed in Malta, Slovakia, Bulgaria, wounded in Montenegro, while in Serbia (not counting the injuries of Gordana Uzelac, inflicted by the opposition members) there was no one with such serious injuries.

We are unaware of the predictions in the past 3 years the President is referring to. However, based on information about the situation journalists and media face in Serbia, during a Free European Media conference in Gdanjsk in February 2018 Matthew Caruana Galizia expressed a chilling warning: Serbia is the European country in which the next murder of journalist is most likely to happen. The prediction didn’t come true, but journalist being murdered or shot in other countries doesn’t mean Serbian journalists are safe. In addition to TV Pink journalists the following physical attacks, some with very serious injuries, took place since the president’s premiership started in 2014:

Only 3 months after Vucic became a PM, on 03.07.2014 FoNet news agency editor Davor Pasalic was severely beaten up by still unknown persons.

On 27.08.2015 journalists Ivan Ninic was brutally attacked with metal bars by two still unknown persons.

During the inauguration of the president, on 31.05.2017 journalists were physically removed from the events and attempts to take their equipment were made. At first instance, the prosecutor rejected charges – it concluded that men who were caught on photo violently handling journalists and protesters “acted decently, did not threaten anyone, pleaded for the provocations to end, and suchlike.” In April 2018, the second rejection cited that “there is no substantial doubt that any of the suspects in any way jeopardized the safety of the journalist by threatening to attack her life or body” thus sending a message that such treatment of journalists is acceptable.

I do understand that I am an easy target for anyone who wants to attack Serbia for the media situation, first of all because of a brief participation in Milosevic’s government, 20 years ago, but I would ask all of them to use facts – and not a mantra which was set as the only way for attacking Serbia, which is economically significantly improving, whose reputation is rising worldwide, and which is trying to resolve important regional political problems.

Aleksandar Vucic’s “brief participation as a Minister of Information in the Milosevic’s government 20 years ago” imprinted strong and well-founded scepticism regarding his attitude to free speech and freedom of media. Reporting about the infamous 1998 Law on Public Information the Human Rights Watch stated:

“The circumstances of the law’s enactment and the record of its application have shown its primary purpose to have been the restricting of speech critical of the government and to oblige journalists to exercise self-censorship. The law was adopted on October 20, 1998, as the NATO alliance was threatening to launch air strikes against Serbia. Two weeks earlier, on October 9, the Serbian government had adopted a decree that prohibited re-broadcasting of the BBC, Voice of America, and other foreign programs in the Serbian language. As of January 2000, fifteen months after the law’s enactment, Serbian and Montenegrin independent media had been punished for violations of the media law on thirty-one occasions, and the average fine had been 420,000 dinars; pro-government newspapers were fined six times, and the fine averaged 143,000 dinars. Apart from the fines incurred for published information, some sixty media law fines, amounting to 3.2 million dinars (U.S. $100,000) were imposed in October and November 1999 upon the ABC Grafika printing house, ostensibly because the house was printing a newsletter not registered with the Serbian Ministry of Information.”

Committee for Protection of Journalist listed press crackdown incidents and reported Minister Vucic use of the Law: “In December alone, three of Serbia’s leading media outlets, including the opposition television station Studio B, were assessed massive fines in a case brought by Aleksandar Vucic, the Serbian information minister. Vucic argued that the three outlets had defamed him by publicizing opposition politician Vuk Draskovic’s claim that the government had tried to assassinate him (Studio B is run by Draskovic’s party, the Serbian Renewal Movement, which controls the city council). Later that month, authorities invoked the law to confiscate more than US$ 400,000 worth of equipment from a printing company that publishes most of Serbia’s independent newspapers.”

Getting better

Finally, I agree with you about one thing. The situation in Serbia, certainly, is not brilliant and there are many things that we need to do in order to make it better.

Precisely, that is why it is important for the state to continue to cooperate with all the media representatives and unions.

After months of advocating nationally and internationally, journalists and media associations made it impossible to ignore the fact that the process of drafting the Media strategy is flawed due to lack of participation of the representatives of profession. After they left the process in Oct 2017 due inefficiency and lack of credibility, and despite calls for a new Working group to be formed, the authorised Ministry continued drafting a document. In an unexpected U-turn, seemingly after a EC annual report and series of meetings with the international actors, the President’s media advisor announced that the draft is being withdrawn and a new document will be drafted. PM Brnabic’s statement followed quoting lack of legitimacy of the Working group.

The initial rejection of the state to recognise this a problem and treatment of media and journalists’ associations does not imply that its authorities truly understand why it is important for the state to continue to cooperate with media representatives and unions. It implies that the decision to start anew was a result of external pressure.

Prime minister Ana Brnabic and myself are firm in showing political will to improve the situation in the media and to cooperate with relevant journalists and media associations in order to achieve that goal.

We invited the OSCE to facilitate the process, while journalists and media associations were asked to contribute by delegating members of the task force for designing a media strategy.

The newly found President and the Prime Minister’s firmness in showing political will to improve the situation in the media is yet to be proved in practice. Based on their statements journalists and media associations accepted the call to participate in the new Working Group for development of the Media strategy. They, however, conditioned their participation with a request for urgent actions on burning issues regarding media freedoms and safety of journalists. A negotiating platform was established comprised of representatives of the journalists and media association and those of the government. Five months later, despite public announcements that dialogue is successful, it is becoming clear that government failed to respond to journalist associations’ demands and the environment is turning more hostile towards independent media and journalists:

After some period of professional behaviour, the President again started using press conferences to humiliate and smear journalists of critical media outlets, calling them ‘American’, ‘CIA’, ‘opposition’ media. Such rhetoric is multiplied by the state officials, as described above. Despite President’s call on TV Happy to his party members to communicate decently with media, and stating he will try the same, this remains to be seen. Since the statement, a Serbian Progressive Party member dropped one of two lawsuits against an online portal.

The state financially and publicly supports tabloids and electronic media that champion fake-news, hate speech and label and insult individuals critical of the authorities, and citizens of different nationalities and confessions.

The Regulatory Authority of Electronic Media is either docile or its Council members use official channels to publicly attack those who are critical of its lack of action using inappropriate language and messages (response of the REM Council member Olivera Zekic regarding calls to react in the case of Ratko Mladic’s live phone in from the prison suggested that “those with ethical concerns should go to church”)

The independent media is subjected to political, economic and administrative pressures (and Serbian Tax Authority is withholding information about its inspection of the media between 2015 and 2017).

After a series of attacks on Danas daily from the parliamentary podium, the media being put in the context of media under Goebbels and Hitler, Corax the daily’s cartoonist, shared his views in a cartoon. Its publication on Danas daily front-page caused condemnation by the Ministry of culture and information that just a fortnight before stated it cannot condemn already mentioned (partially) state owned Ilustrovana Politika front page with the headline Dogs are Unleashed and issues of Vreme, NIN and Danas in the background. The exhibition of Corax and the work of cartoonist Petricic in town of Lazarevac was closed after the opening evening without a meaningful justification of the local self-government.

The State remains illegal owner (to different extent) of media, some of which publish content that fuels hostility toward critical journalists and media; while the process of privatization of state owned media resulted in creation of party, or para-state media.

As mentioned before intimidation of journalists continues, as well as the authorities’ ineffectiveness, as well as pressure through court procedures.

All issues were highlighted through the negotiating platform with a request for urgent action, but remain practically unchallenged – apart from the President’s appeal on TV Happy. Unless concrete steps are taken to counter the increasing state-supported hostility and unless media and journalists association are treated as equal partners in the negotiations, they see no reason in securing pro forma legitimacy of the negotiation process and will withdraw from it.

According to all media associations and unions the good news is that this document is being drafted, in a widely-inclusive process, which is satisfactory.

Of course, I hope that we will get support from the EU, and we are ready to work together with you and reach European standards.

Aleksandar Vucic is the president of the Republic of Serbia

The drafting process is (for now) satisfactory and the Group is using analysis produced by IJAS in cooperation with four journalist and media associations. However, the practice has shown that before the Strategy is adopted it may undergo substantial changes in comparison to the draft submitted by the Working group. Even if it remains the same – the experience proves that strategic documents in Serbia often remain nothing but a list of unfulfilled wishes.

Bearing all above in mind, we hope that the EU will:

– hold the Serbian government accountable for curbing media freedoms and insist on creating a non-hostile environment through effective implementation of laws that guarantee safety of journalists, media freedoms and freedom of expression

– insist on real dialogue and participatory approach in the process of drafting, finalising and adoption of the Media Strategy, with no last-minute changes to the document

– make it very clear that the Media strategy must be implemented in accordance with the highest standards of the rule of law

It is noted that President Vucic failed to address Matteo Trevisan’s assessment of the work of the Regulatory Body for Electronic Media (REM). However, bearing in mind the mandate of this body and its (in)action we pass some of IJAS concerns also reflected in the original text by Trevisan.

MATTEO TREVISAN

REALITY

Another reason to be concerned is the questionable independence of the official body elected as a guarantor of the freedom of expression, the Regulatory Authority for Electronic Media (REM).

The REM, which has been systematically accused of bias, not only avoids using its legal means to punish violations of the law, but has also refrained from publishing official documents that should ensure transparency in the monitoring process provided under those same laws.

Its initial abstention from monitoring the election campaign for the 2017 presidential elections caused an uproar.

REM is an example of what a regulatory body should not be like, a case study of bad practice. Since 2017 REM Council has been operating with 6 out of 9 Council members. They are appointed by the Parliament which by definition opens the possibility unwarranted political influence.

While media with national coverage broadcast content that endangers human rights and violate legally prescribed obligations (endangering the privacy of people about whom it is written, smear campaigns, attack on personal dignity, hate speech, fake news, disregard for special rights of children and minors and victims of violence, leaking data from investigations, media promotion of convicted criminals, etc.), REM Council is mostly silent. It doesn’t use its legally prescribed authorities, or uses it rarely – by August 2018 REM announced 5 measures, in 2017 three and in 2016 – 9 measure. Since its transformation in 2014, REM Council didn’t pronounce a single measure of permit revocation and had one measure of temporary prohibition of broadcasting. REM did not not publish its 2016 parliamentary election report and decided not to monitor 2017 elections. Acting only upon complaint, it failed to initiate a single procedure despite receiving more than 300 complaints. Monitoring is performed by different NGOs and in the last two years shows that candidates from the opposition parties did not have fair and equal coverage by the PBS nor national broadcasters. Since they cannot rely on REM, the Serbian opposition wrote to EBU to exert pressure on PBS, but with no success.

But, REM is not always silent – its Council acting public representative, Olivera Zekic responds to criticism by statements that often insult journalists who are critical of its inactivity: Tamara Skrozza, Gordana Susa – targeted twice alone and once together with the editor of Danas daily Draza Petrovic, daily Danas, TV N1, public service RTS director Dragan Bujosevic, politicians such are Boris Tadic, but also opposition in general even Vladan Vukosavljevic, the current Minister of Culture and Information.

While on hand, there is little or no reaction to increasing violations of broadcaster’s code of conduct and lack of monitoring the election period, on the other hand there is hyperactivity by REM Council that boils down to demeaning of this body and its full politicisation furthering it away form its envisaged role as an independent guardian of media pluralism in the electronic media.

As a result, the Serbian citizens have no access to alternative views and are unable to be informed about issues that determine their livelihoods. Media content during the elections campaigns (and outside) is reduced to propaganda of one specific political solution and smearing of all potential opponents. There is no freedom to information necessary to make an informed choice – this is why experts often refer to REM as the cancer of the Serbian media scene.

Gosti N1: Rešavanje slučaja Ćuruvija kao suočavanje s prošlošću i poruka države (VIDEO)

IJAS

30/11/2018

BEOGRAD, 30.11.2018. – Ubistvo Slavka Ćuruvije moramo da rešimo na pravi način i isteramo istinu na čistac, kao deo suočavanja sa sopstvenom lošom prošlošću, rekao je predsednik Komisije za istragu ubistava novinara Veran Matić. Jelena Ćuruvija, ćerka Slavka Ćuruvije, ocenila je da bi rešavanje tog slučaja bila poruka države da se takve stvari ne smeju više dešavati.

„Ubistvo Slavka Ćuruvije je najbitnije ubistvo devedestih godina, jer je reč o čoveku koji je bio urednik, novinar i simbol, lociran za ubistvo kao najveći politički neprijatelj Slobodana Miloševića. O tome moramo da govorimo, to je nešto što moramo, kao deo suočavanja sa svojom lošom prošlošću, da rešimo na pravi način kao novinari i građani Srbije, da izvedemo priču na čistac“, kazao je Matić.

Dok se to ne dogodi, kako je rekao, „bićemo zarobljeni sa tim dosijeima iz DB koji su presnimljeni, koje neko drži na nekim diskovima i ucenjuje određene političare i novinare, što se nikad nije desilo kao suočavanje sa prošlošću“.

Jelena Ćuruvija je ocenila da bi to bila poruka države da se takve stvari neće i ne smeju više dešavati.

„Da se ne smeju ubijati novinari jer se pišu istinu i bave se svojim poslom kako treba. O tome država mora da razmišlja, da je rešavanje ovog slučaja, presuda da ljudi koji su to učinili budu kažnjeni za svoje delo, to je dokaz da žele da kažu: mi to nećemo više dozvoliti, niti da se vraćaju duhovi prošlosti“, upozorila je.

Matić, koji je kritikovao rad sudskog veća u ovom procesu, rekao je da su napadi zbog kritike rada suda besmisleni.

„Imamo situaciju i da se ljudi iz Komisije za rešavanje ubistava novinara napadaju, to je zastrašujuće, i to ne možemo odvajati jedno od drugog“, dodao je.

Matić je objasnio da je govorio o izuzeću sudija iz ovog procesa, jer ono što je zaključio iz suđenja govori da sudsko veće vodi proces tako da želi da donese donese odluka pre nego što se završi suđenje.

Onog trenutka kad je doneta odluka da se drugooptuženi i treće optuženi puste iz pritvora, to je bio prvi signal da se dešava nešto nedopustivo u ovom procesu, a zatim i posle toga, kada je Apelaciono veće u dva navrata vraća dokaze u suđenje, kao i izostavljanje svedočenja inspektora Dragana Kecmana.

„Ja sam jedino mogao da zaključim da je to namera da se pre nego što se završi suđenje donese odluka“, kaže on.

Matić je rekao da je Srbija u „ozbiljnom problemu iznutra“ i da je problem sudstva mnogo veći problem zemlje nego bilo koji drugi problem.

„Sudsko veće donosi vrlo problematične odluke koje daju sumnju da bi konačna odluka meni mogla da bude problematična“, rekla je Jelena Ćuruvija.

Ona je kazala da je logično da postavi pitanje zašto bi verovala ovom sudskom veću.

„Ako je Kasacioni sud doneo odluku da su prekršili zakon, logično je da ja i Komisija reagujemo, da pitamo šta se događa na pravnom nivou, da li je to veće sankcionisano ili ostaju na tom mestu..“, dodala je.

Država je stala ozbiljno iza rešavanja ubistva, a onda se odjednom pojavljuju tekstovi, u Ilustrovanoj politici, u kojima se napadaju nezavisni mediji, Komisija za istraživanje ubistva novinara, i Ljiljana Smajlović koja je izložena veoma ozbiljnim napadima.

„To je ozbiljan problem kada je reč o Srbiji danas. Ljudi se pitaju da li država kreira tu priču, ili je to neki slučaj… Ne mogu da verujem da je to slučajno, da je neko poželeo da se dodvori Vučiću, ili nekima za koje misle da im mogu pomoći, a u isto vreme ponavljaju reči koje su bile matrica za ubistvo Slavka Ćuruvije“, kazao je on.

Matić ocenjuje da je to „zastrašujuće“ ako se tome ne stane na put.

„Kao da i danas imamo podelu oko uloge Slavka Ćuruvije i onoga sta je radio, i da li je naš Slavko ili čiji“, naveo je.

Matić je ocenio da je potrebna nova svest o onome što se dogodilo, čemu je vrhunac bilo ubistvo Ćuruvije.

„To je bilo nešto nezapamćeno i vrlo je dokazivo na koji način se to dogodilo. I sad imate situaciju u kojoj se izbegava priča o tome, čeka se presuda, to je nešto što nije pravno pitanje samo. Pravno pitanje je vezano za egzekuciju koja je pripremljena unapred. Mi ne ulazimo duboko u celu pricu u dozvoljavamo da se danas dogodi povampirenje Martića i sličnih“, kazao je on, dodavši da je postojanje tekstova takvih autora „zastrašujuće i nedopustivo“.

Ćuruvija je rekla da se i danas događa da se sistematski zabranjuje da odlični novinari rade svoj posao.

„Naravno da je to je sve sistematski, ne mogu da se samo dese duhovi prošlosti, ako ih neko ne pozove da se vrate. A mi ne učimo iz proslosti, nego to dozvoljavamo. Ne smemo dozvoliti, ni novinarska profesija, ni građani, da se to opet dešava bilo kom novinaru ili građaninu koji se bore da žive slobodno i izgovore svoje mišljenje“, zaključila je Ćuruvija.

Serbia: Hitler, caricature artist and media freedom

IJAS

30/11/2018

BELGRADE, 30.11.2018. – The media situation in Serbia continues to deteriorate. Recent events show that government repression of few remaining non-aligned media has become routine. According to RWB, Serbia has the worst media situation in all the Balkans.

Speaking of media freedom in the Balkans, Pauline Adès-Mével, the head of EU-Balkans desk at Reporters Without Borders, said that “the situation in Serbia is worse than in other countries in the region”. In fact, according to the latest World Press Freedom Index , released by Reporters Without Borders in April 2018, Serbia slipped 10 places compared to the previous year’s listing to rank 76th out of the 180 countries.

Judging by some of the things that happened over the last month, in Serbia freedom of expression and media professionalism are “in freefall”, so the future reports published by international organisations will probably show further decline in media freedom in the country.

The few remaining independent media are struggling to survive, being constantly exposed to pressures from the political establishment which is using the news outlets under its control – among which there are many tv stations holding a national broadcasting license – to discredit all dissident voices.

“Caricatures of our lives”

The controversy over caricatures of one of the most important Serbian caricature artists Predrag Koraksić Corax – appeared on the front page of the Belgrade daily Danas – still hasn’t quite down. Polemic broke out when, during the parliamentary sitting, Aleksandar Martinović, parliamentary leader of the ruling Serbian Progressive Party (SNS), accused the daily Danas of conducting “a smear campaign against the SNS and innocent people” that, according to his words , “hasn’t been seen since the time of Hitler and Goebbels”. The deputy leader of the SNS parliamentary group Vladimir Orlić also attacked journalists of the daily Danas, calling them “a disgrace to Serbian journalism”.

Corax replied with another caricature, depicting Hitler and Goebbels holding Orlić and Martinović and bottle feeding them. By publishing this caricature, the daily Danas responded to numerous attacks from the political leadership that reacts to every critical text published by this daily and few other media that are not under control of the ruling party.

The Ministry of Culture and Information strongly condemned Corax’s drawing, claiming that with it the parliamentarians Martinović and Orlović, as well as Serbian president Aleksandar Vučić, have been linked, directly or indirectly, to unacceptable and morally inadmissible context”.

However, president Vučić doesn’t appear in any of the controversial caricatures, so “the reading” of their content by the Ministry of Culture was received with derision by one part of Serbian public opinion, which commented that the Ministry doesn’t distinguish anymore Hitler from Vučić.

The next day, an exhibition of caricatures by Corax and Dušan Petričić, entitled “Caricatures of our lives”, hosted in the city library of Lazarevac, near Belgrade, was censored. The exhibition was opened on 9th November, as a part of the celebrations of the International Day Against Fascism and Antisemitism, but the following day the images were removed. The explanation given by library director is that the exhibition was politicized, since some members of the opposition were among the participants in panel discussion organised on the occasion of the exhibition opening.

“The dogs have been unleashed”

The Ministry of Culture and Information, that strongly condemned the daily Danas and Corax’s cartoons, didn’t react at all to a recent edition of the weekly Ilustrovana politika carrying the front-page headline: “The dogs have been unleashed”, accompanied by a photograph of a dog with gaping jaws, against the background covered with representations of front pages of some independent Serbian newspaper, including the weeklies Vreme and NIN, and the daily Danas. In a six-page article, published in the same edition of Ilustrovana politika, the above-mentioned independent newspapers were accused of acting against Serbia.

The Independent Association of Journalists of Serbia (NUNS) and the Independent Association of Journalists of Vojvodina (NDNV) described the front page of Ilustrovana politika and its article as “a classical call for lynching of independent journalists and media, as well as all those taking a critical stance towards the Serbian political leadership”.

The journalists’ associations also pointed out that Đorđe Martić, author of the controversial article, was the editor-in-chief of a newspaper that in 1999, during the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, published an explicit call for lynching of journalist Slavko Ćuruvija who was killed five day later in the center of Belgrade.

As stated in a join press release by NUNS and NDNV, “another frightening thing is that the political leadership – in a similar manner as in the late 1990s, when Vučić was minister of Information – doesn’t limit itself to an article, but continues to discuss about it on television, with a clear intention to encourage the dissemination of this scandalous invitation to lynching”.

The polemics calmed down only after, Suzana Vasiljević, Vučić’s head of public relations, resigned – under the pressure of public opinion – from the membership in the Supervisory Board of “Politika ltd”, publisher of Ilustrovana politika, and after president Vučić publicly condemned controversial front page.

No representative of the political power condemned, or tried to substantiate the claims made by Marko Parezanović, member of Serbian intelligence (BIA), during a panel discussion in which he participated sitting alongside Serbian prime minister Ana Brnabić. Parezanović said that the biggest threat to Serbia is “hidden action of a foreign factor that mostly uses mechanisms of its special services”, and that some members of the opposition and some media are acting in its interest.

Fake livestream from Paris and real war criminal from Hague

Another image, this time broadcast on the Radio Television of Serbia (RTS), highlighted the lack of professionalism and indulgence in progovernment media. During a live broadcast of speech by French president Emmanuel Macron on the occasion of the centenary of the First World War Armistice, RTS inserted, three times, a freeze frame depicting president Vučić among the public. Although this kind of intervention is quite unusual in live streaming, RTS said that “editor in charge made an error of judgment”.

However, one has the impression that RTS tried to emphasize the importance of Vučić’s presence at the event. During the commemoration ceremony in Paris, Vučić was in a certain sense marginalised, or rather he didn’t get a seat he expected alongside most honored guests, among whom were also some Balkan leaders, including president of Kosovo Hashim Thaçi and president of Croatia Kolinda Grabar Kitarović.

On the other hand, there was no intervention regarding a television show in which participated, by phone, Ratko Mladić, commander of the Army of Republika Srpska, sentenced to life imprisonment by Hague Tribunal for various crimes, including the Srebrenica genocide.

On a morning show on TV Hepi, station with national frequency licence, hosted by station’s director Milormir Marić, appeared leader of the Serbian Radical Party (SRS) Vojislav Šešelj, son of Ratko Mladić, Darko Mladić, and deputy in the Russian State Duma Pavel Dorohin.

During the show, Darko Mladić called his father and put him on speakerphone, and Ratko Mladić was chatting with guests in the studio without being interrupted by questions.

One would expect from the Electronic Media regulatory Authority (REM) to warn, or sanction TV Hepi, for promoting a war criminal. However, in Serbia those things not only don’t get sanctioned but are considered acceptable.

According to Olivera Zekić , member of the Council of REM, “the phone calls are not regulated by law, and those with ethical concerns should go to church”. When asked if it is appropriate for a national tv station to promote war criminals, Zekić responded with a counter-question: “have you ever heard about the battle for the market and for the audience?”.

This publication has been produced within the project European Centre for Press and Media Freedom, co-funded by the European Commission. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of Osservatorio Balcani e Caucaso and its partners and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union. The project’s page

How to avoid defamation charges in reality

BHJA

30/11/2018

SARAJEVO, 30.11.2018.-Media must respect first and genuine professional rule and accordingly release, post or publish correct, true and confirmed information. Consequently, they have to do everything they can in order to get the feedback from so-called “the other side” so they could, in objective and most appropriate and fairway, present all parties involved in their stories.

Although it seems that these professional norms are easy to accomplish, in reality, it is not quite simple. Due to pressure journalists have been imposed with by their editors and deadlines, they often neglect the rules or simply have not enough time to obey these rules and fulfill their tasks in time. This is exactly why they release inaccurate, unchecked and unconfirmed information and their stories often lack constitutional elements, such as “the other side”. What is the solution to this problem? It is simple – do yourself a favor and do not release, post or publish a story until you take everything it takes to confirm your thesis.

This can be done by checking the accuracy of all sources included and all documents and statements you could possibly acquire. During this process, emotions must be put aside, including personal preferences and journalist’s ego, because the story posted upon these basics and fundamentals usually have no sustainable arguments, and this almost always means that the subject story concludes as incorrect and wrong. A journalist and media house that publishes such story may accordingly expect defamation charges from the other side as a result and the defamation legal process exhausts financially; it takes precious time for work away and if the charges are well founded (in legal terms), the process may also take the credibility away.

Besides, the announcement of such incorrect news damages the people and institutions that are subject to this news and the audience is thus provided with wrong information – which is not the goal of benevolent and beneficiary professional journalism. Center of Investigative Reporting (CIN) has so far announced and released over 500 investigative stories, tens of video stories and 14 information bases. All information must be checked several times before it is released, based on relevant documents and witnessing of involved parties that would prove allegations indicated in articles, posts or texts. Shortly – nothing should be “taken for granted”; nothing should be presumed and everything should be checked carefully several times. Due to this kind of working and operating, the CIN and their journalists have never been accused nor convicted of defamation. However, we should take into consideration yet another type of effects that create this kind of working and these effects include public reputation and trust amongst the readers.

Based on CIN stories, many investigations by judiciary and police institutions have been launched, certain legal law amendments were implemented, some politicians and highly ranked officials were also dismissed and sacked and some of them were even convicted for actions they had conducted. Journalists bear great responsibility for their work. Providing public with information regarding important and controversial information, news and affairs is not an easy task to accomplish, taking into consideration that this kind of information must be correct and unambiguous, as this is the only right and appropriate way, because journalists, with every post they release, influence the public opinion regardless to how impossible this may appear. This kind of influence may result in social reactions and consequences may (as a result) be tragic.

Denials following this will not help because (apart from the fact that journalist would be held legally responsible for defamation in front of judiciary institutions), there is even greater burden; the consciousness that their actions could produce a negative impact on public lives, including wrong opinion and attitude they may have about someone or something as a result. I have been writing this text and editing it for two days and during this time, I have also written two denials and directed them to websites that had posted incorrect and wrong news about the cooperation between the CIN and certain local institutions. Prior to this, no one has even contacted me to check whether my post was correct and what exactly was the subject of the alleged cooperation between another party and myself. Finally, this information was removed from this website after two denials and the time I had to spend writing these denials.

I later discovered that this news was forwarded to these websites by the representative of the institution and this very representative had been appointed to this position through political connections. He masterfully represented the CIN meeting (during the public event) as the meeting between the two institutions for eventual planning future cooperation. Furthermore, colleagues have posted this announcement and released it without prior investigation and analysis, despite the fact that they were not the authors of this announcement. This was completely unacceptable and represented a vast violation of basic professional rules, and this is why journalism in BiH (in general terms and because of similar conduct by journalists), is drowning into the abyss.

In CIN we like to say that we “talk” with the documents at our possession and particularly if these documents could prove and confirm corruption or criminal deeds conducted. Journalists get different information from various sources but cannot confirm whether they are accurate or true, that is, whether the document itself has been forged in the first place. We always have to check its authenticity from various sources and after that we decide to use it for our work as opposite and unprofessional actions and operations actually display a dam to semi-truth, false, wrong and incorrect news, including the atmosphere created by bad people, so they can easier attain and acquire their personal interests.

Editor of famous German newspaper told me once that his journalists got the document from certain but, on the other hand, unreliable sources in relation with the issue of arms smuggling and with members of their government being involved in this affair. Information was considered exclusive and they were eager to release it before anything else. However, it turned out that the document had been forged and the editing office was closed down for one month because the police authorities had to launch the investigation regarding this particular case. Therefore, exclusivity cannot be a priority in relation to professional journalism principles because professional journalism does exist for a good reason.

Since the establishment in 2004, the CIN has been implementing the system of information verification as a filter that does not allow incorrect and wrong information to be posted, published, released or announced. During the process of information checking, journalists are required to support every single allegation with solid, firm and verified documents (arguments), including the appropriate collocutors in regard to the subject issue. Until the checking procedure is completed, journalists and editors must reply to questions on a fair basis, regarding the subject of investigation and in accordance with professional standards. As far as I am aware, other editing offices in Bosnia and Herzegovina do not undergo the procedure of detailed information checking.

Those in charge with investigative journalism must do this while editing office (the office in charge of posting, publishing and releasing daily news) may find similar mechanisms that might be considered functional but also faster. Perhaps, consulting with colleagues in regard to the posted subject could be considered appropriate, especially consulting and advising with people considered as fair journalists and journalists with vast experience. Finally, regardless of how certain we are about what we have written; information must be checked several times. In this way, the danger of defamation charges and eventual accusations (or even indictments) shall be minimized. During the process of investigation and writing, the author also disposes of a great amount of information so she/he often takes available information “for granted” without prior explanations for their interconnections or the meaning in certain contexts.

This often makes a key and crucial difference, as far as information content that we release in public is concerned. It also may be considered as the reason why texts and articles may be wrongfully interpreted in public. In order to avoid such misinterpretations, we in CIN have so-called, “roundtable” discussion. This is the process where journalists (our colleagues) read the text loudly and make comments regarding the parts they find unclear.

During this process, texts often alter and change and if the text is additionally considered unclear to colleagues, the end reader cannot find it clear either. In order to protect from defamation, it is unnecessary to “spice” your text with additional phrases such as “criminal/s”, “forger/s”, “thief”, “criminal octopus” or using word games that may discredit and endanger reputation and dignity of the person your write about especially if you cannot prove and confirm your thesis. Finally, why would you do this if you are not sure what is actually the genuine truth? Journalist disposing of arguments and evidence has no need to transform her/his text into a political or marketing pamphlet.

It would represent an undoubted sign that the test provides no answers whatsoever; instead, it raises questions and issues and this cannot be considered as professional journalism, can it? Instead of bombastic labels and tags, identifying and naming the person would be enough, including the explanation what has been done by whom, because this is, after all, our job.

Everything else should be left to readers to make judgments as they will base and have a view of the story provided by you and thus consequently make a conclusion about this particular person. Critical public opinion is made in accordance with this principle and public opinion, again based on journalism quality provided by your editing office and special kind of working procedures, shall at least require the same process from others. Same applies for photo posting.

Humiliating photos of naked persons (as part of your stories) with fingers in their mouths or noses shall not improve the quality of your texts. It would be interesting for a day or two, but it shall not launch legal investigative stories against this particular person. Additionally, it may serve as the legal fundament to prosecution against the authors of such photos. Texts and articles without epithets, mustering, and specific qualifications and metaphors may seem boring, although boring does not mean anything bad in general. Boring is usually great if correct, true and confirmed information is transferred and shared, particularly if they can result in the court trials of those held legally responsible.

This text is a part of E-Bulletin–the third edition of the special serial of BHJ online bulletin implemented as part of the following project: Reinforcing Judicial Expertise on Freedom of Expression and the Media in South-East Europe (JUFREX).

AJK and OSCE held a roundtable on “Role of media in reporting domestic violence”

AJK

30/11/2018

PRISTINA, 29.11.2018 – The Association of Journalists of Kosovo (AJK) in cooperation with the OSCE Mission in Kosovo, held a closing round table on “The role of media in reporting domestic violence”.

The round table was intended to evaluate and discuss the role of media and journalists in reporting on domestic violence, the impact they have through reporting and information on awareness rising of citizens and law enforcement agencies in combating and preventing this phenomenon.

The round table also presented the guideline for journalist “Reporting on Domestic Violence” published by the OSCE. Head of mission, Jan Braathu expressed the pleasure of introducing the guideline that will assist all journalists who, through their work, will be able to raise awareness of society in preventing this phenomenon.

Ambassador Braathu said that Kosovo is a small country to have such a large number of violence, and appreciates the role of media in fighting this social evil.

“For cases of domestic violence we have learned from the media, as if you had not reported it, it would have been not reported at all, maybe the OSCE would know, but people in Kosovo should know and have to react, so the media have a very important role. We at OSCE want to support you to report in these very difficult cases. 1,128 cases have been reported to the Kosovo Police for Domestic Violence, and this is a large number for such a small country as Kosovo”, said Ambassador Braathu.

In her speech, the chairman of the AJK, Gentiana Begolli – Pustina said that the OSCE has always been a contributor to the media, to help report domestic violence.

“One of the areas where the OSCE has always been an irreplaceable contributor and supporter is the development of free media and freedom of expression as well as the promotion of gender equality, with particular emphasis on engagement and fighting domestic violence. As a result of this work and the very important contribution we are holding today, this workshop focuses on the role of media in reporting domestic violence. ”

The president of the Association of Serbian Journalists in Kosovo, Budimir Nicic spoke about the workshop that his organization held in Gracanica for journalists of the Serb community and the importance of reporting domestic violence.

Journalists were part of the panel, Kaltrina Rexhepi-Dragusha from Radio Television of Kosovo (RTK) and Dije Bikliqi from Kohavision (KTV), and both presented their stories and findings about domestic violence. They stated media have great importance in the awareness of the society towards this negative phenomenon.

Other participants were the National Coordinator for the National Strategy for Protection from Domestic Violence, Naim Qelaj, Head of the Sector Against Domestic Violence in Kosovo Police, Tahire Haxholli, Deputy Chair of the Independent Media Commission, Violeta Hyseni -Kelmendi, Women’s Network Representative, Adelina Berisha, and representatives of national and local media.

1...277278279...469 Page 278 of 469

Safejournalists.net

“Caricatures of our lives”

“The dogs have been unleashed”

Fake livestream from Paris and real war criminal from Hague