BEOGRAD, 28.09.2018. – Svrha sistema projektnog sufinasiranja je da građanima obezbedi nedostajuće medijske sadržaje i proširi pravo na slobodu izražavanja.

Nedorečenošću postojećih zakonskih rešenja i, u ne malom broju slučajeva, svesnom zloupotrebom sistema projektnog sufinansiranja medijskih sadržaja, ceo mehanizam projektnog sufinansiranja, od zaštite javnog interesa u oblasti informisanja, u praksi je pretvoren u svoju suprotnost, u podršku pojedinačnim ili grupnim interesima nasuprot osnovnom cilju – kvalitetnijem i raznovrsnijem informisanju građana.

Suočeni sa sužavanjem medijskog pluralizma, ali i obavezom da je ustavno pravo građana da budu informisani na pravovremen i objektivan način, kao i da  svim medijima i novinarima bude obezbeđen ravnopravan položaj, predlažemo niz mera, preporuka i aktivnosti kako bi model sistema projektnog sufinansiranja medijskih sadržaja  zaista bio u funkciji javnog interesa i to kroz povećanje transparentnosti i dostupnosti podataka o obimu i plasmanu državnog novca; efikasniju kontrolu potrošenog novca te kroz evaluaciju postignutog; adekvatne sankcije za nenamensko trošenje i sprečavanje korupcije; i dalje unapređenje pluralizma sadržaja. Kako bi se ovaj mehanizam priveo svrsi neophodno je izmeniti Zakon o javnom informisanju i medijima (ZJIM) kao i prateći Pravilnik o sufinansiranju projekata za ostvarivanje javnog interesa u oblasti javnog informisanja. 

1. Utvrđivanje konkretnih potreba građana kroz definisanje javnog interesa i utvrđivanje namene konkursa. 

Većina konkursa na lokalu formuliše se na način da se prepisuju odgovarajuće odredbe ZJIM i Pravilnika, a bez prave svesti o tome koji segment javnog interesa bi najpre trebalo podržati u zavisnosti od konkretnih potreba stanovništva u konkretnoj lokalnoj sredini.

Veoma su retke analize potreba za nedostajućim medijskim sadržajima od javnog interesa koji doprinose podizanju kvaliteta javne debate o svim  relevatnim društvenim pitanjima.

Preporuka: Propisivanje obaveze organima javne vlasti da sprovode periodične analize potreba za medijskim sadržajima, koje će sadržati i ekonomsku analizu troškova za proizvodnju takvih sadržaja, na nacionalnom nivou, pokrajinskom i nivou lokalne samouprave, uz kontinuirano učešće građana.

2. Sastav i način rada konkursnih komisija

Izveštaji “Bela knjiga projektnog sufinansiranja” [1] i “Pravna analiza projektnog sufinansiranja” [2] su mapirali veliki broj problema koji se odnose na rad stručnih komisija, i proces odlučivanja o dodeli sredstava.

Određeni broj problema proizilazi iz nedorečenosti regulative. Najčešće je reč o definisanju pojma „medijskog stručnjaka“ koji može da učestvuje u radu stručnih Komisija. Nije, zatim, propisana zabrana učešća u radu stručne komisije za određenu kategoriju lica koja su u sukobu interesa ili obavljaju javnu funkciju.

Neohodno je uređenje osnovnih pravila rada stručne komisije, kao i propisivanje zabrane preinačenja odluke komisije o dodeli sredstava od strane organa javne vlasti.

PREPORUKA: Određivanje maksimalnih i minimalnih iznosa koji se opredeljuju na konkursu, u skladu sa ekonomskom analizom i uz primenu “troškovnog principa” koja bi imala za cilj da se sredstva koja dodeljuju organi javne vlasti što više vežu za realne troškove koje mediji imaju u proizvodnji medijskih sadržaja od javnog interesa.

5. Transparentnost procesa i ocena ispunjenosti svrhe projektnog sufinansiranjaDosadašnja praksa u primeni projektnog sufinansiranja je pokazala da je vrlo upitna transparentnost čitavog procesa – od predkonkursne faze, kada bi trebalo da se utvrde teme od javnog interesa, preko konkursne faze, odnosno sprovođenja samog konkursa, do postkonkursne faze, odnosno izveštavanje javnosti o ispunjenosti svrhe podržanih projekata. Naime, predkonkursnu fazu sprovodi tek nekoliko lokalnih samouprava. U konkursnoj fazi, propisanu obavezu objavljivanja većine dokumenata koji su važni za ovaj proces ne poštuju svi organi. Često se dešava da neke lokalne samouprave ne objavljuju uopšte dokumentaciju ili je objavljuju na neadekvatan način. Postkonkursna faza ili faza evaluacije projekata putem dostavljanja narativnih i finansijskih izveštaja je apsolutno netransparentna jer izveštaji nisu dostupni javnosti. S druge strane, taj mehanizam nije u dovoljnoj meri doprineo da se adekvatno vrednuje ostvarenost ciljeva javnog interesa kroz finansiranje određenog medijskog sadržaja. Zbog toga taj sistem treba dopuniti i to pojašnjavanjem ispunjenja obaveze interne analize, ali i uvođenjem kategorije eksterne analize koja će pomoći u što boljem sagledavanju ostvarenosti ciljeva javnog interesa u oblasti javnog informisanja.

PREPORUKA: Unapređivanje transparentnosti procesa projektnog sufinansiranja putem javnih rasprava, objavljivanje svih dokumenata vezanih sa konkursne procedure, te objavljivanje narativnih i finansijskih izveštaja. Neophodno je uvesti analizu ostvarenih ciljeva javnog interesa pojašnjavanjem pravila interne i eksterne evaluacije.

6. Informisanje manjinskih zajednica i drugih ranjivih grupa

Projektno sufinansiranje medijskih sadražaja od interesa za javnost u dosadašnjoj praksi nije imalo većeg efekta kada je u pitanju informisanje manjinskih zajednica, kao i drugih ranjivih grupa (poput osoba sa invaliditetom), budući da se radi o specifičnoj meri afirmativne akcije u cilju ostvarivanja ljudskih prava manjinskih zajednica i drugih ugroženih grupa. Kako se ova podrška kroz “opšte konkurse” se nije pokazala kao adekvatno rešenje, ima smisla dati “posebne garancije” za ostvarivanje tog segmenta javnog interesa u oblasti javnog informisanja, kao mere afirmativne akcije za koje nije potrebna izmena zakona. PREPORUKA: Definisati mere “afirmativne akcije” prema medijskim sadržajima od javnog interesa namenjenih manjinskim zajednicama i drugim ranjivim grupama, odnosno razdvojiti opšte konkurse od konkursa koji se odnose na medijske sadržaje namenjene nacionalnim manjinama, odnosno informisanju osoba sa invaliditetom i drugih ranjivih grupa. Problemi projektnog sufinansiranja ne znače nužno da je sistem uspostavljen medijskim propisima loš, te da u potpunosti treba odustati od ovakvog načina raspodele sredstava.

Drugim rečima, sistem zahteva određene izmene regulative, dok sa druge strane zahteva i postojanje volje za pravilnom implementacijom, odnosno primenom u skladu sa postavljenim ciljevima medijske politike.

Ceo dokument  “Uređenje projektnog sufinansiranja medijskih sadržaja” možete požete pogledati u prilogu.

BELGRADE, 28.09.2018. – The purpose of the project-based co-financing system is to provide citizens with the missing media content and expand the right to freedom of expression.

The ambiguity of existing legal solutions and, in quite a few cases, deliberate abuse of the project-based co-financing of media content have turned the entire project-based co-financing mechanism from protection of public interest in the area of information into its complete opposite, into support to individual or group interests, contrary to the main goal – providing more quality and diverse information to citizens.

Faced with shrinking media pluralism, but also with the obligation that it is the citizens’ constitutional right to be informed in a timely and objective manner, as well as that all media and journalists should be given an equal position, we propose a number of measures, recommendations and activities to ensure that the project-based co-financing of media content system really does serve public interest, specifically through increasing the transparency and accessibility of data on the volume and distribution of state money; more effective control of the money spent, and through the evaluation of achievements; adequate sanctions for the misuse of funds and prevention of corruption; and further enhancement of content pluralism. For this mechanism to serve its purpose, the Public Information and Media Act and the accompanying Rulebook on co-financing projects for achieving public interest in the area of public information need to be amended.

1. Identifying citizens’ specific needs by defining public interest and determining the purpose of competitions.

Most competitions at the local level are formulated in such a way that the appropriate provisions of the Public Information and Media Act and the Rulebook are copied, without any real awareness of which segment of public interest should be supported first, depending on the specific needs of the population in a given local environment.

Analyses of what missing media content of public interest is needed, which contributes to raising the quality of public debate on all relevant social issues, are very rare.

Recommendation: Prescribing public governing bodies the obligation of conducting periodic analyses of the media content needed, which will also include an economic analysis of the cost of producing such content, at the national, provincial and local self-government levels, with continuous participation of the citizens.

2. Composition and manner of operation of competition commissions.

The White Book on Project Co-financing[1] and The Legal Analysis of Project-Based Co-financing[2] reports have mapped numerous problems pertaining to the work of expert commissions, and the process of deciding on the allocation of funds.

Some problems stem from the ambiguity of regulations. The issue is mostly the definition of the term “media expert,” who can participate in the work of expert commissions. There is also no ban on the participation of a certain category of individuals who are in a conflict or interest or are public officials, in the work of expert commissions.

The fundamental rules of operation of an expert commission need to be regulated, and a ban should be placed on revising the commission’s decisions on the allocation of funds by public governing bodies.

RECOMMENDATION: Improvement of expert commissions’ work and reduction of arbitrariness in the work of said commissions through defining the term “media expert,” prescribing rules of an expert commission’s work, placing a ban on revising an expert commission’s proposal by public governing bodies, and specifying “conflict of interest.”

3. Competition realization responsibilities.

This is one of the most problematic issues, because it goes beyond the matter of project co-financing (as it touches on the question of conduct supervision in line with the Public Information and Media Act in general), and partly involves other laws outside the media field. The identified problematic points of this process, where responsibility for realization is concerned, pertain primarily to:

• surveillance of the legality of conduct of local self-government units in the implementation of provisions on competition-based co-financing;
• control of state aid in the area of project-based co-financing;
• inadequate sanction system.

RECOMMENDATION: Improvement of control mechanisms through cooperation between the competent bodies, and through prescribing the jurisdiction of the Administrative Inspectorate in the project co-financing process, but also prescribing a larger number of sanctions for violations of the law and a higher fine in misdemeanor cases.

4. Determining the total amount of funds allocated in a competition.

The project-based co-financing practice of the Republic, Province and local self-government units does not define criteria for the amounts to be allocated in competitions. The “cost principle” as a result of prior economic analysis is not applied, thus the sums allocated range from several hundred or several tens of thousands of dinars to tens of millions.

RECOMMENDATION: Determining maximum and minimum amounts allocated in competitions, in line with the economic analysis and with the application of the “cost principle,” which would aim to tie as much as possible the funds granted by public governing bodies to the real costs the media have in the production of media content of public interest.

5. Process transparency and evaluating fulfillment of purpose of project-based co-financing

The practice of implementation of project-based co-financing so far has shown that the transparency of the entire process is highly questionable – from the pre-competition phase, when themes of public interest should be defined, through the competition phase, i.e. the realization of the competition itself, to the post-competition phase, i.e. informing the public about whether the purpose of the supported projects has been fulfilled. Namely, only a handful of local self-government units carry out the pre-competition phase. In the competition phase, not all bodies meet the prescribed obligation of publicizing the majority of documents important for this process. It is a frequent occurrence that some local self-government units do not publicize any documentation at all or do so in an inadequate way. The post-competition phase or the phase of evaluating projects through the submission of narrative and financial statements is absolutely non-transparent, because the statements are not available to the public. On the other hand, that mechanism has not sufficiently helped to adequately evaluate the achievement of goals of public interest through the financing of certain media content. That is why the system needs to be supplemented with further explanation of fulfillment of the internal analysis obligations, but also by introducing the external analysis category, which will help to review as well as possible the achievement of goals of public interest in the area of public information.

RECOMMENDATION: Improving the transparency of the project-based co-financing process through public hearings, publicizing all documents related to competition procedures and the publication of narrative and financial statements. Analysis of achieved goals of public interest needs to be introduced through further explanation of the rules of internal and external evaluation.

6. Informing minority communities and other vulnerable groups.

Project-based co-financing of media content of public interest has not had much effect so far where providing information to minority communities and other vulnerable groups (e.g. persons with disabilities) is concerned, given that it is a special measure of affirmative action for the purpose of exercising the human rights of minority communities and other endangered groups. As this support through “general competitions” has not turned out to be the right solution, it makes sense to provide “special guarantees” for realizing that segment of public interest in the field of public information, as affirmative action measures that do not require legal amendments.

RECOMMENDATION: Define measures of “affirmative action” toward media content of public interest aimed at minority communities and other vulnerable groups, i.e. separate general competitions from those pertaining to media content meant for national minorities, i.e. for providing information to persons with disabilities and other vulnerable groups.

The problems in project-based co-financing do not necessarily mean that the system established by media regulations is bad and that this method of distributing funds should be completely abandoned. In other words, the system requires certain amendments to regulations, while on the other hand it also calls for the will for proper implementation, i.e. implementation in line with the defined media policy objectives.

[1] http://nuns.rs/reforma-javnog-informisanja/projektno-finansiranje-medija/27964/publikacija-bela-knjiga-konkursnog-sufinansiranja-javnog-interesa-u-sferi-javnog-informisanja.html

[2] http://nuns.rs/about-nuns/publications/reports.html

BELGRADE, 27.09.2018. – The safety of journalists is one of the fundamental prerequisites for the unobstructed exercise of the right to freedom of expression.

All relevant Serbian and international reports note a decline in the level of safety of journalists in Serbia, while suggesting to the Serbian authorities to publicly condemn hate speech and attacks on journalists, and to create guidelines that clearly define criminal offenses and other types of misdemeanors. Relying on the findings of the reports and analyses conducted in the previous period, the IJAS has put together recommendations and amendments aimed at improving the position of journalists where the right to safe and unobstructed work is concerned. The recommendations and amendments primarily pertain to amendments to the following laws: the Criminal Code, Criminal Procedure Code and the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia.

1. Enhancement of the Legal Framework

For the legal framework pertaining to journalists’ safety to be enhanced, certain amendments to legal regulations need to be made. The recommendations provided for the amendment and supplementation of legal provisions can be divided into three groups: the first pertains to supplements to the Criminal Code, the second to supplements to the Criminal Procedure Code, and the third pertains to constitutional amendments as regards improvement of independence of the judiciary as the central body of criminal procedure, as well as amendments to the laws regulating the position of the prosecution.

Recommendations for Supplements to the Criminal Code

According to the IJAS database, the last few years have seen a trend of increased pressure on journalists and other media professionals relative to verbal threats and physical assault. In 2017 the number of registered cases of pressure was 62, whereas this year 49 cases of pressure have already been documented.[1] These cases almost always remain unpunished because they are not considered criminal offenses, i.e. those incidents do not contain elements of a criminal offense. Some of those pressures, such as demands to remove footage or a photograph, demands for expulsion from a session or ban on presence of certain teams of reporters, the confiscation of a large number of newspaper copies, as well as the removal of news items or the prevention of broadcasting a show “on orders from the top,” and even cases of long-lasting smear campaigns where the “targets of pressure” are often journalists who report critically on the authorities, are eligible for classification under the criminal offense Violation of Freedom of Speech and Public Appearance in Article 148 of the CC.[2] First of all, a special analysis should be conducted regarding the practical reach of legal protection related to the criminal offense Violation of Freedom of Speech and Public Appearance, and whether amendments to this article need to specify what falls under the actions of “limiting” and “denying” freedom of speech and public appearance. The name and legal marks of the criminal offense also need to be aligned with Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the offense should be named Violation of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression. The introduction of a new, defined form of this criminal offense is also proposed, which would envisage special incrimination in cases where the limiting and endangerment of freedom of expression pertains to a journalist.

There are also frequent cases where journalists perceive certain situations and events as threats, however, those cases are not considered direct threats in the sense of the criminal offense Endangerment of Safety in Article 138 of the Criminal Code, but rather can be classified as a different criminal offense. Some of those events, primarily in situations where journalists feel persecuted via social networks and other forms of electronic communication, can be classified as the criminal offense Persecution, thus the introduction of a qualified form of that criminal offense is proposed, when it is committed against an individual performing work of public importance in the area of information, for which a more severe penalty may be foreseen.

With the development of modern means of communication, possibilities of unauthorized interception of communications and access to so-called stored communications could, to a significant extent, lead to the revealing of a journalistic source. That is a big problem because it calls into question the protection of anonymity of a source. We’ve had cases of certain journalists being followed and recorded, such as the female journalists of the Center for Investigative Journalism of Serbia (CINS).[3] There was also the case of Stevan Dojcinovic – when the Crime and Corruption Reporting Network (KRIK) started investigating the property of then-prime minister Aleksandar Vucic, the Informer newspaper published numerous pieces of information from Dojcinovic’s professional and personal life, which Dojcinovic later found out had been provided by an intelligence agency.[4] The recommendations propose that the introduction of new forms of criminal offenses be considered, in situations where the offenses are committed against journalists (i.e. against individuals performing work of public importance in the area of information) for the purpose of both protecting the journalist and ensuring the legal protection of a journalistic source, whose secrecy ought to be secured. This particularly pertains to the following criminal offenses: Violation of the Secrecy of Letters and Other Shipments, Unauthorized Wiretapping and Recording, Unauthorized Photographing, Unauthorized Publication and Presentation of Another’s Texts, Portraits and Recordings, Unauthorized Collection of Personal Data, Violation of the Freedom of Speech and Public Appearance, Prevention of Printing and Dissemination of Print Material and Program Broadcasting, Computer Sabotage, Unauthorized Access to a Protected Computer, Racial and Other Discrimination.

As for physical assault on journalists, situations where minor injuries are inflicted on journalists are more frequent in practice. The recommendations propose consideration of the possibility for the criminal offense Minor Physical Injury to also recognize the special position of a journalist as a protected entity and to introduce a special form of that offense.

Recommendations Pertaining to Amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code Relative to Certain Procedural Rules

The investigations and procedures carried out following attacks on journalists are largely not carried out quickly and efficiently, often without a court epilogue. There are cases that are handled quickly and efficiently, but they seem to be rare. There are many unsolved cases: in the period from September 1, 2017 to September 1, 2018, 21 out of the total 28 cases were not  solved. An even bigger problem is the fact that there is a very large number of cases where several years have passed since their happening, while the procedures for their solving are only in the pre-investigation stages.

In order to improve the legal protection of journalists and to carry out procedures faster and more efficiently, certain amendments and supplements to the Criminal Procedure Code need to be made.

With the aim of ensuring more efficient action by prosecutors, deadlines (even general ones) for the actions of competent prosecutors’ offices in the preliminary criminal investigation phase need to be set, which, relative to the issue of protecting the safety of journalists, can also be done through the provision of mandatory instructions by the Public Prosecutor’s Office to the prosecutors’ offices, without the necessity of changing the legal framework. The possibility of similar deadlines being set for police actions should also be considered.

For the purpose of establishing more effective legal protection, the possibility of judicial control of the legality of dismissing criminal charges should be considered, i.e. an effective instrument should be provided for situations where a second-instance prosecutor’s office has rejected a complaint against the decision on dismissing criminal charges. The introduction of judicial control of decisions of the competent public prosecutor should also be considered in cases where criminal prosecution has been postponed, i.e. where criminal charges have been dismissed (cases in Article 284, paragraph 3 of the Criminal Procedure Code), i.e. the injured party should be provided with a legal remedy in such situations.

With the aim of contributing to the equalization of the procedural position of the injured party as a private plaintiff and the public prosecutor, review the possibility of police assistance to journalists as the injured parties in cases of incidents pertaining to them, when there is no possibility of criminal prosecution ex officio, i.e. where criminal offenses prosecuted through private criminal charges are concerned. They are the following: Violation of the Secrecy of Letters and Other Shipments, Unauthorized Wiretapping and Recording, Unauthorized Photographing and other criminal offenses.

Constitutional amendments concerning improvement of independence of the judiciary as the central body of the criminal procedure, as well as amendments to the laws regulating the position of the prosecution.

The recommendation goes beyond the matter of journalists’ safety and pertains to a greater degree of autonomy of the public prosecution. The gradual reduction of systemic possibilities of other branches of government (primarily the executive) on the actions or non-actions of public prosecutors’ offices is necessary. For that to happen, the constitutional and legal framework needs to be changed, along with the laws regulating the position of public prosecutors’ offices. In that sense, the Republic of Serbia, as a member of the Council of Europe, should implement all the recommendations made by the European Commission for Democracy through Law (also known as the Venice Commission) so far.

2. Education and Encouragement of Journalists to Report Cases

Besides amendments and supplements to legal regulations, achieving the main objective – creation of a favorable environment for the unobstructed work of journalists and other media professionals – requires journalists (the injured parties) themselves to be incited to utilize all legal instruments prescribed by law. They should be encouraged to file criminal charges, complaints directly to a higher prosecutor, to undertake criminal prosecution in situations where a public prosecutor has given up in the post-charging stage, and to file private charges (for applicable criminal offenses). Also, where possible, journalists as the injured parties should be encouraged to initiate misdemeanor proceedings in situations where the conditions for criminal prosecution have not been met. In certain situations, the injured parties (journalists) can also get “satisfaction” by leading civil lawsuits for damages, regarding events that may induce a subjective feeling of endangerment or which may be treated as a different form of pressure, but lack legal or misdemeanor relevance.

In parallel with encouraging journalists to report cases to the competent bodies, the injured parties should be educated about the manner of reporting incidents and the content of specific reports. Pro bono legal assistance programs should be provided, which would give journalists (as the injured parties) appropriate legal aid in putting together their reports.

[1] Source: www.bazenuns.rs

[2] Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, Mission to Serbia, Analysis of the Efficiency of Legal Protection Measures for Journalists in Serbia, Belgrade, 2018

[3] Source: http://www.bazenuns.rs/srpski/detalji-napada-na-novinara/496

[4] Source: https://www.krik.rs/urednik-krik-a-tuzio-vucicevica-i-informer/

SARAJEVO, 26.09.2018. – In the first two weeks of the pre-election campaign, the media, and in particular public services, did not provide citizens with enough information to enable them to make informed choices. A significantly larger presence in  media of those subjects who are already participating in the ruling system, as well as the almost complete invisibility of the new parties in BiH, has been noted. political scene. These are some of the results of the preliminary analysis of the Media Monitoring during the pre-election campaign of 2018 that was presented today in Sarajevo.

Monitoring is organized in order to determine whether and how many media contribute to citizens making an informed choice, and whether the media is reporting in the interests of political subjects or in the interests of citizens. Lejla Turčilo, professor at the Faculty of Political Science at the University of Sarajevo, author of the methodology and preliminary report, presented the key observations of media monitoring in the period from September 7 to 21.

“Of the analyzed 10,602 media content, which were published in this period, the election content was 18%. Private television stations – 28.05% and the small public radio stations – 11.59%, said Turcilo, adding that private media (TV stations, press and portals) reported more about electoral campaign than public media.

A disturbing indicator is that a large part of media space is occupied by politicians who are already public officers, and it can be said that they are privileged in the context of obtaining media space in the pre-election campaign.

Na press konferenciji su predstvaljena ključna zapažanja i preporuke za medije kako bi se do kraja predizborne kampanje unaprijedili kvalitet i raznovrsnost medijskih programa posvećenih izborima. Rečeno je kako je nedopustivo da mediji, a posebno javni servisi, zanemaruju svoju funkciju edukacije i orijentacije, kao i da je potrebno više pažnje posvetiti informisanju o izborima. Pored toga, istaknuto je i da većina medija treba usvojiti fer i izbalansiran pristup u predstvljanju poliitčkih subjekata, jer je vidljivo da ne poštuju pravo na odgovor niti daju priliku političkim subjektima da odgovore na optužbe, etiketiranje, neprimjerene kvalifikacije…

On the press conference key recommendations for media were presented at the press conference in order to improve the quality and diversity of media programs dedicated to the elections by the end of the pre-election campaign. It is said that it is unacceptable that media, and especially public services, ignore their function of education and orientation, and that more attention should be paid to informing about the elections. Additionly, it was also pointed out that most of the media should adopt a fair and balanced approach in the representation of political subjects, as it is evident that they do not respect the right to reply or give the opportunity for political subjects to respond to accusations, labeling, inappropriate qualifications …

It has been emphasized that public services, in particular RTRS, must pay more attention to various political actors, not just political parties and canadians in power. Also, the Regulatory Agency for Communications was invited to take more responsibility for monitoring the media and regulation during the election period.

The Media Monitoring is carried out on a sample of 30 media (5 daily newspapers, 10 news portals and 15 electronic media), with the intention of creating recommendations for improving media legislation and their obligations during the pre-election campaign, within the BASE project financed by the European Union and USAID, and is implementing a consortium of BH journalists Association – Boram and Coalition Pod lupom.

PODGORICA, 27.09.2018. – In order to improve knowledge and professional reporting on vulnerable groups in Niksic, NGO Women’s Action published a Local Media Handbook on (non) discrimination, which focuses on reporting on women, Roma people, people with disabilities and LGBTI (Q) persons.

“The handbook was created precisely with the intent to strengthen the positive role of the media in Montenegrin society, by understanding the current moment and giving practical guidelines to media workers in the content handling of disadvantaged social groups. It brings together the challenges that these social groups encounter on a daily basis, which must be overcome by the synergy of all social actors, including the media”, it’s one of the preposition in  the publication, authored by Kristina Bojanović, Mirjana Vlahović Andrijašević and Marina Adžić.

The Handbook, according to the authors’ aspirations, should result, among other, opening a quality media space for the objective and affirmative presentation of women, Roma, disabled and LGBTI (Q) persons, freed from those social constructs based on stereotypes and prejudices.

Also, the result should be the use of a precise and (gender) correct language in media reporting, as well as strengthening social solidarity and creating an environment of respect for human rights and freedoms in which the rights of each person will be respected in the same way.

The preparation of the Handbook was preceded by an analysis of local media in Niksic on 11 July 2018, aimed at identifying the relationship of local media towards discriminated groups in Niksic society.

“The analysis of Montenegrin media shows that the media are still very little engaged in reporting on women in a true and quality way. Therefore, in the world of media, there is an unwritten rule that topics are divided into “men”, therefore, very important for men and for the rest of the population, and “women” that are usually concerned only with a woman and for a rare gender-sensitive man. Media should, as part of their socially responsible business, devote equally high quality to the promotion and participation of both women and men in political and public life, focusing on the expertise and results achieved by both”, is the one of the conclusions of the analysis.

It also showed that there was no content in the monitoring period in any media that treats the Roma population.

“Although efforts by the state and non-governmental organizations whose spheres of interest are Roma people, in recent years are making a lot of efforts to improve their status, primarily through facilitating access to educational, health and social programs and services, the fact is that Roma people live on the margins of poverty and are socially excluded. If we add to this the insufficient interest of the Montenegrin media to make this part of the community to come out of the shadows and allow its voice to be heard and echoed, then the problem definitely becomes bigger, more dangerous and noticeable”, authors said.

Another recommendation is that the media should avoid showing physical and mental disadvantages as the determining factors of persons with disabilities. On the other hand, they should, take care of their human rights when reporting. Treatment of persons with disabilities in the media as victims, protective,  should be avoided.

“Beside educational institutions, great responsibility lies with you as media workers to educate and inform the Montenegrin public about LGBTI (Q) in a professional, ethical, credible and objective way, and contribute to creating a climate of social tolerance of diversity and respect for human rights LGBTI (Q ) persons”, is one of the recommendations in the Handbook.