PODGORICA, 22.10.2018. – Every third student of journalism doesn’t want to be a journalist. This is the result of the research made by the Trade Union of Media of Montenegro with the help of Faculty of Political Science, published in April, 2018.

The research has shown that young people enroll in journalism because they perceive that profession as socially important but, at the same time, they see it as „not profitable“. For this reason, they want to work in PR or related but better-paid professions.

Also, it has been announced that every third student in the future sees him/herself as a TV journalist, working in the entertainment program.

During one discussion at the Faculty of Political Science (Department for Media Studies) about differences between high-quality journalism and tabloid journalism, a group of students asked the following question: Why should we write well when nobody reads such articles and we don’t get paid? Looking only from the perspective of market logic students have asked rational question. However, by setting such a formulation, they’ve ignored the concepts of ethics and integrity. And, finally, they’ve (probably unknowingly) posed a big – value problem.

The world of information is huge (infinite?). Why, among all those yellow, black, incomplete, biased texts, fake news etc. quality needs to find a way – that is, in fact, the question that deserves the answer.

The fact that the quality is rare influences the motivation of future journalists. More than half of the respondents in the research consider position of journalists in Montenegro as unsatisfactory or poor. They clearly notice (especially older students) that dealing with high-quality journalism means more learning, researching and working and less earning, or – being in danger. Unfortunately, for some of them, finding a solution ends here.

Our duty is to offer students a different response to the mentioned, important problem. The situation in practice, however, is constantly deteriorating and the problem is wide, systemic.

Social status of journalists: Report Social status of journalist in Montenegro, published by Center for Democracy and Human Rights (CEDEM) in cooperation with the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) four years ago, pointed out some of the problems with which journalists face daily (they aren’t organized and united in professional structures and trade unions, a significant percentage of employees is not insured, overtime is not always paid etc.). According to the data from this survey, the average net salary of journalists in Montenegro was around 470 euros. More recent study, Indicators on the level of media freedom and journalists’ safety, published in 2016, also states that the incomes of journalists are lower than the national average.

Media freedom: According to the World Press Freedom Index (2018), published by Reporters Without Borders, Montenegro is ranked 103th out of the 180 listed countries. This report states that the authorities “have stepped up pressure on the public broadcaster RTCG; that “none of the physical attacks on journalist of previous years was punished in 2017”, that self-censorship is one of the major challenges…

Media (il)literacy: Balkan countries, according to a study by the Open Society Institute in Sofia, are not capable of resisting fake news. Montenegro is ranked 31^st in the list of 35 countries. Seven regional media development organizations plan the realization of the project Media for Citizens – Citizens for Media, in the period 2018-2021. In February 2018, Agency for Electronic Media (AEM) of Montenegro and UNICEF have launched a media literacy campaign “Let’s Choose What We Watch”. The goal of the campaign is to influence the awareness of the importance of choosing media content for children. The effects of these projects have yet to be measured.

After reviewing all these data let’s return to the students. Has the Faculty of Political Science produced journalists who fail to deal with negative phenomena in society and profession or young and educated journalists are really powerless in front of the system?

Two years ago, Montenegro Media Institute has published the research on educations need of journalists and media literacy in Montenegro. Acting director of the Institute, Mr. Vladan Micunovic, said that he “can’t link the journalism studies and improvement of the quality of journalism in Montenegro”. Experts interviewed in the research have also noted that media management doesn’t invest enough in the education of its employees.

Of course, educational standards must be discussed continuously. But, we should not lose sight of the following: Education includes concepts of ethics and integrity (in Serbo-Croatian, word education – obrazovanje contains word honor, morale – obraz). In addition to practical preparation for “job market” students should prepare for ethical dilemmas in profession and outer. During various reforms over the last few years educational system, however, has chosen the path of “market logic”. In such a system, students of journalism “do not need” disciplines that build up a conscious man who thinks critically, who understands the essence of freedom.

If we don’t show to the students of journalism what the values are, and why professional and free work, even when it’s not paid enough, is better than the low-quality work, what will be the journalism of the future? And what consequences will we all endure?

Dragana Zaric, teaching assistant at the Faculty of Political Science, Podgorica

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.

PRISTINA, 19/10/2018 – The OSCE mission in Kosovo in cooperation with the Association of Journalists of Kosovo (AJK) organised on Monday a workshop regarding the financial sustainability of media and the level of transparency of local governments when distributing funds to cover sessions of their local assemblies.

Panellists stated that public funds allocated to local media should be more transparent and urged for clear criteria’s in the future set by relevant institutions when disbursing funds. Also, media representatives stated that there are concerns for the closure of many local media due to a lack of public grants from municipalities.

President of the Association of Journalists of Kosovo (AJK), Gentiana Begolli-Pustina said that financing media through public institutions can infringe the editorial independence of the media.

“When we say that a media outlet is independent, it means that it is impartial and that there is no group that influences that media outlet. Certainly, it is good to know who the source of the financing is, whether a media outlet is funded by advertisement, donations, and contributions or in some other way. Sources of financing, if not publicly known, lead to doubt among residents, leaving them wondering who actually stands behind the editorial policy,” said Begolli-Pustina.

Panellists stated that another concern is the editorial independence level of local media when receiving funds by municipalities adding that such an issue is an unspoken pressure. Some media representatives said that their editorial independence is not tackled by such funds following the receipt of public funds from their respective municipalities.

The participants jointly agreed and recommended the establishment of clear criteria for the allocation of public funds to local media in order to ensure a transparent, fair and competitive process. The OSCE Mission and the journalists’ association will now work to advocate for the implementation of these recommendations.

The workshop followed the publication of a report in December 2017 by the Association of Journalists of Kosovo on public spending in the media sector.

BELGRADE, 19.10.2108. – Following an official address with the Austrian President Alexander van Der Bellen at the Belgrade Security Forum conference, Serbia’s head of state Aleksandar Vucic held a separate news conference for local and regional journalists where, in a different tone, again targetted media.

Vucic first criticised an RTS reporter for complaining about a statement by his Serbian Progressive Party (SNS) official, and asked her why she did not react in the same way when Dragan Djilas, an opposition leader, “demanded that the editor-in-chief (of the Informer tabloid, considered close to Vucic and SNS) go to prison.”

N1: Before I post a question, I would like to ask you to stop putting pressure on our colleagues from the RTS, and to start addressing us with our proper name – N1. You have been calling us (the co-owner and the president of the United Group Board, Dragan) Solak’s and (a leader of the opposition Alliance for Serbia Dragan) Djilas’ television for months. Solak is our co-owner, but Dragan Djilas has no connection with the N1. I would kindly ask you to treat us professionally as we treat you. Is that all right?

Vucic: Go head, do you have a question?

N1: I do, but I asked you if that was all right?

Vucic: Go ahead.

The President then said that he had been trying to act professionally toward the N1.

Vucic: “Unlike you who haven’t been professional ever. And that is the harshest word I have for you – that you have never been professional. Instead, you are Dragan Djilas’ political branch office. Do you want to ban me from thinking and having a different opinion? Who are you and who has a right to tell me what I may say and what I must not? Or, will you form a commission and then hang me because I don’t think as you do?

And as far as Solak and Djilas are concerned, you are right. There is no paper evidence about Djilas’ ownership; he only owns Direct Media and a company in Bulgaria which Mr Solak bought. Has Solak paid Djilas 10 million Euros for a building? And he is only the co-owner of a company in Malta with a Direct Media director. Also Djilas’ director. Is that true? Well, it is. Just for people to understand who is lying and who is telling the truth.

So, Solak and Djilas are together in all businesses, buying from each other. But, it seems you don’t want to talk about the facts, but you like to punch a beg since I’m not on your television to defend myself. But, as you can see, when I have a chance to protect myself and tell the truth, its worse for the fact.

I will address you as you ask me to, but will never miss the opportunity to say that it is Solak’s television with a maximum of Djilas’ political influence.

About their businesses, selling, buying, muddling, that’s for people to judge.

So, I accepted your idea.”

Vucic then asked when was he a guest at the N1 last time?

N1: Why haven’t you?

Vucic: Why haven’t I? You’re right, why? Because you spend more time on persecuting my entire family than to ask me a question.

N1 TV: No politician influences our editorial policy

The N1 television has said that it is entirely independent television and that no politician, including Dragan Djilas, affects its editorial policy.

“N1 rejects any attempt of political influence on our editorial policy, regardless what side of the political spectre it comes from.

The same goes for linking N1 to any political organisation.

N1 is doing business within the United Group which, following all legal decisions and approval by respective regulatory bodies, became the only owner of the Direct Media agency.

The majority owners of the United Group are investment funds BC Partners and KKR.”

BEOGRAD, 19.10.2018. – Nakon formalnog obraćanja sa austrijskim predsednikom Aleksanderom van der Belenom na Beogradskom bezbednosnom forumu, predsednik Srbije Aleksandar Vučić održao je posebnu pres konferenciju za domaće i regionalne novinare. Predsednikov ton tu je bio daleko drugačiji. Na meti su se ovog puta našli novinari Radio-televizije Srbije i N1.

Vučić: Koliko ste puta vi gospođice Stojisavljević, koliko su puta s vaše televizije, s RTS-a, da za ljude koji gledaju ne bude zabune, išli ste da plačete tamo u prostorije Vuka Jeremića da plačete zbog jednog saopštenja Milenka Jovanova, pa što niste išli da plačete u redakciju Informera zato što Dragan Đilas traži da ide u zatvor glavni urednih Informera, valjda vam je više stalo do kolege. A traže tri godine zatvora, ne kažu neku ružnu reč, već traže tri godine robije da ga pošalju. Pa niste išli tamo da plačete. Niste izgleda to ni objavili na RTS-u. Jer valjda je bogougodno da se napada jedan novinar koga ne vole direktor i glavni urednik državne televizije.

N1: Pre nego što postavim pitanje da Vas zamolim za dve stvari. Da prestanete da vršite pritisak na kolege sa Javnog servisa. A druga stvar je da nas počnete da nazivate imenom N1. Mesecima nas nazivate Šolakovom i Đilasovom televizijom. Dragan Šolak jeste naš suvlasnik, ali Dragan Đilas nema apsolutno nikakve veze s N1. Molim vas da se prema nama ponašate profesionalno i odnosite na onaj način kako se mi odnosimo prema Vama? Je l’ to u redu?

Vučić: Izvolite, imate li pitanja?

N1: Imam pitanja, samo Vas pitam je li to u redu.

Vučić: Izvolite.

Predsednik Srbije je zatim rekao da se sve vreme trudio da se profesionalno ponaša prema TV N1.

Vučić: Za razliku od vas koji nikada niste bili profesionalni. I to je moja najteža reč koju upućujem vama, da nikada niste bili profesionalni. Već ste bili direktna politička ekspozitura Dragana Đilasa. Hoćete da mi zabranite da mislim i imam drugačije mišljenje? Ko ste i ko ima pravo da mi govori šta smem, a šta ne smem da kažem? Ili ćete da uvede komisiju pa ćete da me vešate zato što ne mislim kao vi. A o Šolaku i Đilasu u pravu ste, nema u papirima da je Đilas vlasnik, on je samo vlasnik Direct medije i kompanije u Bugarskoj koju je gospodin Šolak kupio. A samo je sa direktorom Direct medije vlasnik kompanije na Malti. Isto Đilasove direktorke. Je l’ to istina? Pa istina je, samo da bi ljudi razumeli ko laže, a ko govori istinu. Dakle, Šolak i Đilas su u svim biznisima zajedno, jedan od drugog kupuju. Je li Šolak deset miliona evra platio zgradu Đilasu? Nego nešto ne volite o činjenicama da pričate, a volite da udarate u džak pošto mene nema da se branim na vašoj televiziji. A kad, kao što vidite, imam priliku da se branim i da kažem istinu, onda tim gore po istinu. Ja ću da vas nazivam kako mi vi kažete, ali nikad neću propustiti da kažem da je to Šolakova televizija sa Đilasovim maksimalnim političkim uticajem, a to što oni petljaju, trguju, muljaju, prodaju, kupuju jedan drugom, to narod neka sam procenjuje. Evo, prihvatio sam Vašu ideju.

Vučić je zatim upitao kad je poslednji put bio na N1.

N1: Što niste?

Vučić: A što nisam. E, u pravu ste, što nisam. Zato što imate preča posla da mi gonite celu porodicu pre nego što meni postavite bilo kakvo pitanje.

TV N1: Na uređivačku politiku ne utiče nijedan političar

Televizija N1 saopštava da je u potpunosti nezavisna televizija i na njenu uređivačku politiku ne utiče nijedan političar pa ni Dragan Đilas.

“N1 oduvek odbacuje svaki pokušaj političkih uticaja na uređivačku politiku nezavisno od toga sa koje strane dolaze, kao i povezivanje N1 sa bilo kojim političkim subjektom. N1 posluje u sklopu Junajted Grupe koja je, nakon pozitivnih odluka i saglasnosti zakonski nadležnih regulatornih tela, postala stopostotni vlasnik agencije DIRECT MEDIA. Većinski vlasnici Junajted Grupe su investicioni fondovi BC Partners i KKR”, navodi N1.

BELGRADE, 19.10.2018. – The president of the Commission Investigating Murders of Journalists, Veran Matic, explains his initiative for introducing security assessments of threats against individual journalists.

Matic told Cenzolovka in an interview that he has relayed his concern both to them and to those who, according to their job description, should react.

He says the security assessment is a matter of free choice of journalists, and from his own experience, he stresses that he would never impose life under police protection on anyone.

Among journalists, consensus can only be possibly reached about the fact that the profession of journalism in Serbia has long been unsafe. There is no consensus on what can be done about this issue, and this debate can be burdened by suspicion and reservations, especially toward the initiatives that involve the state being more actively involved in improving the safety of journalists.

Thus, was the first reaction to the proposal of Veran Matic, the president of the Commission and a member of the Standing Working Group on Journalist Safety, to, for preventive purposes, carry out security assessments for prominent investigative journalists.

Can the state at all – from which some journalists believe the greatest danger emanates from -succeed in reducing or eliminating security risks, is only one of the dilemmas that Matic’s statement has brought up to the fore.

We talked with Veran Matic about his proposal, what motivated him to come up with the idea of a security assessment, how it would be done, and how the possible measures would affect the life and work of the journalists themselves – and whether there is a chance that the journalistic guild might still accepts his idea.

“I did not present the proposal to do security assessments just like that,” Matic said in an interview with Cenzolovka. “My assessment is that until now we did not have any preventive activity. I also encountered a caricature of warnings that there are problems and serious threats. And then in the region and in the EU, murders are happening every few months, including the killing of journalists who are part of international research networks, whose representatives among us most are also among those most exposed, when it comes to direct threats, satanization, etc.”

Cenzolovka: You submitted this proposal to members of the Standing Working Group on Journalist Safety last week. What was their reaction?

Matic: Based on the reaction of SWG members and part of the public, I realized that it was possible that some of the misunderstanding was due to the fact that I proceeded from my own experience of a person who was under (police) protection. Obviously, it was necessary to explain in greater detail what I meant by this. I think that the members of the group have been a little startled, someone immediately thought about police protection, while the police representative was surprised and suggested that we bring an expert from the MUP (Interior Ministry) who would explain how, and in what situations the security was done.”

When I speak about security assessments, I speak from the perspective of someone who has had the experience. The life of Brankica Stankovic, and my own life. The lives of our families have been seriously underminded by the police protection. I would wish this on anyone. And I would not impose life under police protection onto anyone.

What happened to us is irreversible, we cannot fix it in any way. I could be the first to be very angry at those who evaluated my security. But I can never be sure whether this has prevented the endangerment of my life or the life of Brankica Stankovic. What we could see from the documents was very worrying.

Cenzolovka: One of the public’s doubts is whether the security assessment would be done in cooperation with journalists or beyond their knowledge.

Matic: Security assessments for Brankica Stankovic and myself had been done without our knowledge. They were not even security assessment, but a reaction to a direct threat that appeared in communications.

If we are looking for a security assessment for some of our colleagues, then that’s not the same. We want to check the state of security. It is determined by looking at all the essential information that exists in the activities of security institutions at that moment, and in some period for which a security assessment is required.

We always have options, we do not have to ask for an assessment, we can collect data and say: in relation to these data, we are asking for a targeted security assessment only for this aspect of the activity. We can ask a question in a wide range.

My idea is, if we think that we are endangered as a profession, with all the new challenges or those challenges that are not recognizable among the authorities, it is important to put targeted questions and then later rely on the assumptions and answers of the authorities.

When it comes to the safety of journalists, it is impossible to perform any kind of work only on behalf of institutions or on behalf of journalists only. Close cooperation is necessary, and if that is lacking, as well as trust, then it is meaningless to work on common models.

I think it was important to create an operational apparatus that will be available 24/7 to any journalist and media worker, with a strong lawyer support, which would encourage every kind of reaction, and provide guaranteed free endless legal support.

Some associations did not want institutionalization. I think that this is still an unsolvable problem, regardless of the defrosting of the participation of associations in the working group for security.

Cenzolovka: If your statement has faithfully transmitted in an interview with B92 – that assessment would only be done for “prominent investigative journalists.W Is there a particular reason why you just set them apart?

Matic: When I spoke about “prominent investigative journalists,” I spoke in a symbolic sense. From there, it is certainly necessary to start with a security assessment, as this is about colleagues who we know often manage both teams of colleagues locally and throughout Serbia, and they know best who should be part of some kind of security assessment in their teams. Of course, I do not think that this type of prevention should be restricted to them exclusively.

One out of the four murdered journalists in the last year, we know that three people were killed while working on topics concerning international corruption, EU fraud… They worked within international networks of investigative journalists who are not fully recognized as media journalists. After all this, either we can be silenced or say that we are concerned about the Serbian versions of Daphne from Malta, Marinova from Bulgaria or Kuciak from Slovakia.

For the murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia, the liquidation was being prepared for a long time through intimidation placing a fire in a family house, through 57 court lawsuits, frozen bank accounts, arrests, and tax administration inquiries. Everything went unpunished.

For a long time I have been investigating the killings of journalists and I understand how important the impunity for the murders of journalists and for the prevention is. Prevention makes sense if it is done so that the worst, murder of journalists, does not occur. My suggestion is that we use much more energy for the prevention, before anything more serious happens.

Cenzolovka: Did you have in mind any particular danger for any journalist?

Matic: I am very concerned about very specific journalists. And I also told this to them, and those who, according to their job description, should react. And to determine if there are reasons for my concern. I think it’s better that I raise am alert and make a mistake, than for something bad to happen to to sombody. And I have some personal experience as a form of credibility.

Anna Politkovskaya’s husband once told his wife that what she did was doing was “an alarm for justice, no for journalism.” And, unfortunately, with her cruel liquidation an alarm occurred, that her case is an alarm for the impunity for crimes committed against journalists.

It’s not only investigative journalists that are the possible targets. We see violence against journalists working for local newspapers, website, regional agencies… We need to talk about each case, as well as about preventive initiatives.

Cenzolovka: Can you explain – who and on what basis nitiate assessments and how are they performed? Are journalists’ fears that they themselves, or their communications, could be “under control” and that, inter alia, their communication with the sources would be jeopardized are justified?

Matic: When I presented my proposal, I immediately thought of the most drastic form of police protection and the story of the sources, etc. And I did not think about it at all, because it is the most drastic form of protection that does not come out of the proposed safety checks – it happens when certain information is given for urgent reactions.

My idea is that associations and legal teams that defend journalists say what their assessments are to the degree of the vulnerability, threats, ranks… to show who are the most vulnerable journalists and editors, or leading people in an association. The degree of threat and impunity tells us that there are potentially more drastic activities. Do security institutions have a similar or different view?

The amount, the drastic nature and the frequency of threats to Nedim Sejdinovic… I did not count, but I think he is among the most exposed. And the entrance to the space in which he works (the Independent Association of Journalists of Vojvodina) makes him exposed to frequent defamation.

Very frequent threats filled with hate speech carry with them a lot of aggressiveness on various topics, from the counting of blood beads, the appearance, the stereotype of the politics they represents, the mercenary… they by themselves they also produce their own concerns.

When a similar rhetoric is added to some of the representatives of the authorities at official forums, an “explosive mass” is obtained for the potential reaction of someone who has mental problems, someone who wants to prove himself as a “patriot”, someone who would design to further damage the state image on purpose.

If such condensed information shows the repetition of certain matrices, I believe that a more serious control of the entrance to the premises should be introduced, in order to identify and sanction those who destroy the board at the entrance and the entrance itself… And to determine who these people are, maybe representatives of groups that generally represent a social danger.

If it were found that there is a threat to personal security, there are a number of options – avoiding situations in which an attack could happen, engaging private security… I believe that support of various organizations dealing with journalist safety will be provided (for more drastic cases they also have safe houses). Only in the drastic form of the threats, police protection is imposed.

There is always a possibility to refuse police protection, and then the system must find a way to protect the life of the journalist. This means that the protection would not be personalized to a single bodyguard, but there would be greater number of actors involved, from a greater distance, less noticeable.

Security assessments, in a way, also trigger the institutions of the system to think in these categories, they are bound to do that.

Cenzolovka: Institutions of the system that journalists do not trust too much…

Matic: Since I see that there is opinion that the institutions of the system pose the greatest danger to journalists, it would be worthwhile to argue such claims well and find a way to get a credible security assessment team.

Naturally, it is always possible to engage experts who would gain confidence, there are also authorized agencies, there are international experts. It is possible to agree on the creation of our committee to protect the safety of journalists (such as the US Committe to Protect Journalist), we can create an expert security team, etc.

When it comes to the strategies that will protect the safety of journalists, security protection 24/7 is not the only possible solution. It is possible to perform surveillance that would represent protection only in certain situations that can be assessed in advance as security risk, or only on certain locations …

Of course, it is also possible to refuse any police protection. But it is clear that it is very important that we all together document an estimate that something bad can happen to our colleagues.

When it comes to how in these circumstances it is possible to meet with the sources, I believe that you should talk to Brankica Stankovic and her associates. I think that the management of B92 has found an excellent mechanism to enable the evolution of investigative journalism, regardless of the new limiting circumstances (we strengthened the research team, performed the redistribution of assignments, Brankica focused on editorial duties, and we increased funds provided for the work of the editorial staff).

On the one hand, we had state security mechanisms, and on the other – ours mechanisms. All this was a very complicated experience because we did not have a role model to adhere to, but we managed to preserve our lives, regardless of the estimates that did not come only from the police.

When a similar rhetoric is added to some of the representatives of the authorities at official forums, an “explosive mass” is obtained for the potential reaction of someone who has mental problems, someone who wants to prove himself as a “patriot”, someone who would design to further damage the state image on purpose.

The manner of organization and functioning within B92 (and what we did internally in order to do our job in a normal and undisturbed manner) was described in detail by Brankica Stankovic in the book “Insider, My Story”.

Cenzolovka: When some and only investigative journalists publicly express distrust towards the Ministry of Interior, which should carry out the assessment, they are reasoning that the greatest danger threatens them precisely from the state, that is, its officials, most of whom are campaigning for slandering and targeting, and their media satellites that spread these threats. Are the journalists most at risk from the state and what other threats are they exposed to?

Matic: Investigative reporters should present their own position and possible solutions to the problems of threats and pressure, whether they come from the representatives of state institutions, whether they come from mentally challenged persons filled with hatred, or some third party.

Of course, the most disturbing ones for me are coming from the representatives of the executive and legislative authorities and representatives of the relevant institutions, because they should all work impartially and in the direction of creating a democratic society, based on the basic postulates of democracy, freedom of the press, freedom of speech.

As far as security is concerned, I would like to hear the suggestions of investigative journalists to improve their safety in practice. As well as to see what are the possibilities in specific cases. If there is no trust and desire to work on securing safety, then we probably should not waste time. And that solutions are being sought at completely new levels.

I would prefer that in the bodies dealing with the safety of journalists there are journalists who are directly exposed to security risks, campaigns of slandering and targeting, and not only representatives of the association, because I believe that we would be more productive then.

It is extremely important to create a social climate, and our country is strongly politically polarized. Hate speech, threats, creation of intolerant climate, cannot be otherwise prevented except by the social agreement of the main actors.

I am the first one who could be very angry at those who assessed my security. But I can never be sure whether this has prevented the endangerment of my life or the life of Brankica Stankovic. What we could see from the documents was very worrying.

Cenzolovka: What do you expect will happen to your initiative?

Matic: It would be first necessary within the media community to talk about the safety of journalists. I have the impression that, in spite of the fact that this community is disunited, those who could be endangered do not have much confidence in the associations.

It would certainly be important that an initiative be launched from those who are systemically threatened. I mean the trend we are talking about, which is dominant in Europe.

Then, there are those journalists and news desks that do not belong to the research group, but are under the pressure of a wide range of hindering work, endangering the existence…

When it comes to the Permanent Working Group, I think that for some time, working procedures and rules and the like will be more important, and that we will be waiting for some consensus on this topic.

I think that it is not so difficult to create a national consensus that there should be technical coordination of all activities that should help create the conditions for prevention. That the competent legal team is working on the SOS phone which is connected with direct communication lines with representatives of the prosecutor’s office, police, journalistic associations…

With strong legal support, which is free. With clear recommendations on what each journalist should do if he gets threats, if he encounters problems, etc. This can be done by a completely new agreement on the basis of which the Permanent Working Group was established, but I do not see the necessary interest.

Then, by establishing an institution of Protector of journalists who would function independently in relation to the government, by creating a committee to protect journalists, which would create a professional consensus on threats and security, with independent sources of financing of all aspects and assessments of security, protection, safe houses, etc.

I think that each of these options could be easily and quickly realized if there was an agreement between journalists, associations, etc. Then, an agreement with representatives of the authorities, and with representatives of the international community…

This is a unique moment. If it is missed, it is possible that we will get into the situation of Hungary or some other country that has become full member of the EU, and that there are no more convincing ways to create mechanisms and institutions that will guarantee the safety of journalists, more than usual, more than average.

SARAJEVO, 17.10.2018. – Biased reporting, under-representation of female candidates and dominant presence of elected officials and ruling parties in the media, are some of the conclusions of the second preliminary media monitoring report during the 2018 election campaign.

Monitoring is organized whit the aim to determine whether and how many media contribute to the citizens making an informed choice, and whether the media is reporting in the interests of political subjects or in the interests of citizens. Professor Lejla Turčilo, the author of the methodology and the preliminary report, presented the key observations of media monitoring in the period from September 7, the beginning of the pre-election campaign, until October 5, ie until the day of electoral silence.

„According to the monitoring indicators, we can not claim that the media, and in particular the public services, provided sufficient information to the citizens, which would enable them to provide an informed choice“, said Turčilo and added that inappropriate speech was present bio in a relatively small percentage of media content, not counting visitors’ comments on news portals.

Of the analyzed 22,566 media content published during the election campaign, there were 5,290 election content, or 23 percent, of the electoral content. In public services, this percentage ranged from 1 to 3 percent, while in private media facilities there were 5-6 percent of electoral content.

The media kept on the mere reporting on the activities of political subjects. Journalists are largely the authors of election-related stories, with a smaller share of broadcasting of political subjects (5.6 percent). In 53.55% of the content, journalists are signed as authors of texts or contributions, while in less than a third of the content the authorship is not specified at all.The qualitative analysis of data obtained through media monitoring has shown two forms of media bias towards political entities. Mild bias implied the use of affirmative language and disproportionate right to reply through disproportionate representation of political subjects, favoring particular political subjects.

„It was easier to analyze open bias because it was characterized by promotional contributions of political parties, framing and casting, and masking the function of a collocator“, enphasized Borislav Vukojević, researcher and master of communicology.

Inappropriate speech was one of the subthemes analyzed within the media montioring and its share in electoral content (8.3 percent) was lower than in previous campaigns.

“The ones who used inappropriate speech were mostly non-political actors, ie political subjects and representatives, and there was a noticeable trend of lack of journalists’ reaction to inappropriate speech, especially in live broadcasts,” Vukojević added.

When it comes to female candidates, in the monitored election content they are present in 15% of cases, which says they are significantly subordinated. The media’s relationship towards female candidates was largely neutral.

The three most common political subjects in media content analyzed are the political parties SDA, SNSD and HDZ, while the new subjects of the political scene in BiH have significantly fewer opportunities and venues to appear in the media. Large and established parties that are already taking part in the government have had the largest space in the media, which is explained by the fact that their members are the carriers of public functions.

Media monitoring during the election campaign of the 2018 General Election is conducted on a sample of 30 private and public media (5 printed, 15 electronic and 10 informative online news portals), from 7 September to 10 October 2018. It is realized within the framework of the BASE project – Building Responsibility and Systems in the Elections – funded by the European Union and USAID and implemented by the consortium of BH Journalists Association – Boram and Coalition “Pod Lupom” .