The European Federation of Journalists (EFJ) joined partner organisations of the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) today in raising the alarm about two draft media laws brought forward by the Serbian government for their lack of compliance with international freedom of expression standards. If passed they would represent a regressive step with wide-ranging implications for media freedom and pluralism. As the public debate on the legislation continues, the MFRR calls on the Serbian government to withdraw the problematic changes added into the latest drafts and ensure compliance with the country’s previously agreed Media Strategy.

The latest draft versions of the Law on Public Information and Media and the Law on Electronic Media, developed by the Ministry of Information and Telecommunications, propose a framework that would block the reform of the Regulatory Body for Electronic Media (REM) and pave the way for a return to full state ownership of private media, including Telekom Srbjia. The MFRR is concerned that the proposed changes do not comply with international and European standards on media freedom and freedom of expression and diverge radically from the objectives of the Media Strategy adopted by the Government of Serbia in 2020.

First, the draft of the Law on Electronic Media does not foresee the election of new REM Council members after the adoption of the new law, despite the fact that the draft law prescribes completely new criteria for their election, as well as authorized proposers, as is foreseen in the Media Strategy adopted by the Government of the Republic of Serbia. The REM has faced both domestic and international criticism, including from the MFRR, for its lack of independence and politically-motivated decision-making processes. There has also been widespread criticism about how members of the REM are appointed. Proposed changes which would oblige the Council of REM to adopt the Code of Labour – a shift which would better regulate the ethics of its members – have also been disregarded. If passed, this proposal would solidify political control over REM and block much needed reforms to strengthen the regulator’s independence.

Secondly, the new proposal of the Law on Public Information and Media fails to establish legal provisions that would ensure that all media must meet ethical standards to receive public co-financing funding. Under the previous draft, sanctions issued by the Press Council could see media fail to receive public money from co-financing funding for public interest content. However, new rules provide a loophole for print and online media outlets which have not accepted the competence of the Press Council. For those media, such criteria would not apply, meaning they can continue to violate professional standards with impunity and still receive public funding. We fear this will disadvantage media which abide by professional standards and further encourage the dissemination of disinformation and violent rhetoric in the Serbian media landscape. This change was controversially included at the last-minute by the government and was not discussed in a wider Working Group established to discuss the draft laws, which comprises members of civil society and of the journalistic community.

Thirdly, the government also included in both draft laws an identical provision which would essentially facilitate the return to state co-ownership of private media in Serbia. Under the current Media Strategy, direct and indirect ownership of private media by the state is banned. However, the new law would formally allow the state to return to being the co-owner and founder of media outlets. This would formally legalise the ongoing ownership situation at telecommunications provider Telekom Srbija, which is majority state-owned, in violation of the current law. If passed, the MFRR fears the new law would further cement government control over Telekom Srbija and represent a damaging new form of media capture in an EU Candidate Country which is already experiencing its biggest crisis for independent journalism in years.

Finally, the MFRR highlights that the new proposals radically deviate from the Media Strategy, a landmark blueprint developed after widespread consultation with the journalistic community, which the government of Serbia has held up as proof of its commitment to positive reform of the media landscape. This new approach also undermines years of work by journalist associations and working groups to shape the laws and bring them closer in line with EU acquis and other European standards.

Our organisations warn that if passed, the new laws would undermine national and international confidence in the Media Strategy and pose serious questions for the government’s commitment to improve media freedom and pluralism as part of its potential accession to the European Union. Rather than ushering in positive steps in this direction, the last year has been marked by steps backward, as noted by many of our organisations following a visit to Belgrade, and in the most recent report of the European Parliament.

The MFRR therefore shares the concerns recently outlined by the Coalition for Media Freedom in Serbia, and calls for the government to reverse the problematic changes introduced in the two draft media laws and ensure that their provisions comply with international standards on freedom of expression. As the public debate on the legislation continues, we urge the government to return to discussions with the Coalition and other groups which remain committed to reform of the media landscape in Serbia in line with European values. Key provisions must be reintegrated into the draft laws, especially those which provide for more democratic management of the REM. Our organisations will continue to closely monitor the situation in Serbia and call for systemic media reform.

Signed:

• ARTICLE 19 Europe
• European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF)
• European Federation of Journalists (EFJ)
• Free Press Unlimited (FPU)
• International Press Institute (IPI)
• OBC Transeuropa (OBCT)

The Board of the Association of Journalists of Kosovo considers the comments made by football coach Ismet Munishi to sports reporter Qendresa Krelani on an aired program as unprofessional, insulting, and sexist.

Such language should not be tolerated since it has no place in public discourse.

Given that Krelani is one of the very few women in sports journalism, Munishi’s language helps to discourage other women from choosing to report from this field of journalism.

The Danas daily received threats via Facebook in a comment on its article entitled “What is the role of the SPC (Serbian Orthodoc Church) in the tragic events in Kosovo.”

Danas reported that the article had a fairy large number of comments many of which contained offensive messages addressed to the daily’s journalists and news desk.

However, one of the comments, which calls for the news desk to be burned down, is particularly worrying.

“There won’t be any mention of them once they are burned down,” wrote one of the commenters to Danas’ post on Facebook.

The threats have been reported to the Prosecutor’s Office for High-Tech Crime.

This is not the first time that threats are addressed to Danas. In November last year an email was sent to Danas editor-in-chief Dragoljub Petrovic’s official email address that threatened “salvos of bullets” against the daily’s journalists, editors and columnists, along with a message that Danas will share the fate of Charlie Hebdo.

Independent Journalists’ Association of Serbia (IJAS) considers the announcement of the City Committee of the Serbian Progressive Party (SNS) in Vranje, in which the local portal Vranjenews is labeled as terrorist and traitorous, inadmissible. 

In the statement, religious, national and racial intolerance is spread with inappropriate rhetoric, and the Vranjenews portal is accused of media which works for “terrorist and war criminal Albin Kurti” who justifies the “killers of Serbs from Kosovo and Metohija”. The reason for this announcement is the text published on the website vranjenews.rs under the title “Kurti published the list of seized weapons, vehicles and money near Banjska”.

IJAS strongly condemns the rhetoric of the ruling party and considers it unacceptable, because this type of verbal attack on the media directly threatens the safety of journalists and makes them targets for further attacks, since the hostile atmosphere towards journalists and the media is also transmitted to citizens.

Of particular concern is the fact that this is not the first announcement of this kind by the SNS board in Vranje, and that similar language was used. IJAS also reacted then.

IJAS calls on the Serbian Progressive Party to condemn the announcement of its City Committee from Vranje and distance itself from this type of communication, and City Committee SNS Vranje to publicly apologize and refrain from further spreading the network.

IJAS,

27.09.2023.

Journalists’ associations are anxiously awaiting the continuation of the public debate on changes to two media laws, which open up a long list of problems. They warn that the state is planning to reacquire media ownership while the government, on the other hand, responds with a counter thesis that it has seen this practice in Europe. N1 asked media experts working in the European Union (EU) – what is the relationship between the state and the media really like?

“The state will withdraw from the media” – this was a promise given by the incumbent government back in 2014. Serbia took the path of reform, but the government had a change of mind. Employing legislation, it now wants to take a piece of the media pie.

The state’s argument is as follows – in 10 EU member states, the telecommunications companies that the state has a stake in – have their own media. They cite the examples of Austria, Germany, Sweden, Belgium and Estonia. And this actually is true, but in most cases the state does not have majority ownership and the media in question are not key news channels.

In addition, the level of media freedom in these states is rated far better than that in Serbia. For example, according to the Reporters Without Borders report for 2023, Sweden is ranked fourth, Germany 21st, Austria 29 and Serbia 91st out of 180 countries included in the ranking.

Changes to media laws will have contributed to the further collapse of media freedom in Serbia, which is why they are criticized by journalists’ associations. And the state is not giving up. It even accuses the United Group media of misleading the public when they say that such practice is not in line with EU standards. But is it?

“Mentioned in Austria is the case of the telecommunications company A1, it should be said that the majority of A1 shares is owned by Mexican tycoon Carlos Slim while the state only has a minority share, in other words, the state does not control anything in A1, but Carlos Slim does. The situation is similar in other countries, where sometimes the state has a small stake, mostly owing to the past,” explained Ljubljana-based journalism professor Marko Milosavljevic.

“These recommendations are not in conformity with international and European standards on media freedom and freedom of expression, actually we believe that, if these laws actually are adopted, that will only consolidate political control of your regulatory authority and block the much-needed reforms to strengthen the independence of the regulator and media,” said Maja Sever of the European Federation of Journalists.

The key difference between Serbia and other European countries is precisely in the level and mechanisms of control. The government says nothing about ways in which political influence on the media sphere is prevented in Germany. Or how the Prosecutor’s Office in the aforementioned Austria works. Sebastian Kurz “paid the price” by leaving office due to a media scandal and the suspicion that he exerted influence on the media.

“For example the German Telekom is a huge company and has also been caught in various cases of corruption in many countries, however, only 13 percent of its shares are held by the German state. The vast majority of shares are held by small shareholders, and the vast majority of shares are in the hands of someone outside of Germany. We have the example of the former chancellor of Austria – Sebastian Kurz, who was caught trying to influence the media and had a rough time, we see this not a possibility in Serbia – not only were they caught trying to influence the media, but the media are openly pro-regime,” said Deutsche Welle journalist Nemanja Rujevic.

This was also noted in reports by the European Commission, which is asking Serbia to fix the situation in the media without delay. This is why the people N1 spoke with believe that novelties in the laws could draw still more criticism from Brussels.

“In principle, state ownership is not a good thing, it opens up possibilities for abuse, political and economic, and Serbia will definitely suffer consequences because of that,” professor Milosavljevic added.

All of society will also suffer consequences. This leads to democratic regression and increases the possibility of pressure by the governing elites on independent media, which are already operating in an atmosphere of fear.