Državni sekretar za informisanje: Novinari da čitaju zakone

13/02/2018

BEOGRAD, 13.02.2018. – Ministarstvo kulture i informisanja nema ingerencije da javno osuđuje napade na novinare, izjavio je državni sekretar u tom Ministarstvu Aleksandar Gajović. U Intervjuu nedelje Radija Slobodna Evropa (RSE) je rekao da bi novinari, kao i svi ostali, trebalo sami da se štite i da napade prijavljuju nadležnima. Gajović je ocenio i da se „namerno potenciraju napadi na novinare koji nisu provladini“, i doveo u pitanje istinitost njihovih svedočenja o pretnjama i napadima.

RSE: Protiv novinarke nedeljnika „Vreme“, članice Komisije za žalbe Saveta za štampu i organizacije CRTA Tamare Skrozza, televizija PINK vodi kampanju u prilozima koje emituju u centralnim dnevnicima, u kojima je montažom izjava iz satirične emisije „24 minuta sa Zoranom Kesićem“, predstavljena kao neprijatelj predsednika Srbije Aleksandra Vučića. Zašto Ministarstvo nije reagovalo?

Gajović: Ministarstvo kulture i informisanja se pre svega bavi normativom i nadgleda, odnosno nadzire kako se tri medijska zakona sprovode. Mi pojedinačno nikoga ne štitimo. Ako gospođa Skrozza misli da je oštećena bilo čime, onda ona presavije tabak i to prijavi policiji, koja to dalje uzme u obzir i u obradu i to je to.

RSE: Ovde nije stvar u zaštiti policije, pitam vas zašto Ministarstvo nije osudilo kampanju napada?Gajović: Ministarstvo kulture i informisanja se zaštitom novinara bavi donošenjem zakona. Najveći problem srpskog novinarstva, a i gospođe Skrozza, je što ne čita zakon. Kada bi pročitala sva tri medijska zakona, naročito Zakon o informisanosti i medijima, onda bi mogla da vidi način kako da se zaštiti. Svako treba sebe da zaštiti na ovaj ili onaj način.

RSE: Hoćete da kažete da ona sama treba da se štiti u ovoj situaciji?

Gajović: Da se obrati određenom državnom organu koji se time bavi. Ministarstvo kulture i informisanja se ne bavi time što vi smatrate da treba da se bavi.

RSE: Kažete da vaše Ministarstvo nije nadležno, zašto nije reagovalo Regulatorno telo za elektronske medije (REM)?

Gajović: Postaviću vam kontrapitanje – da li u ovoj zemlji postoji napad na doktore, da li postoji napad na advokate, da li postoji napad na bilo koju drugu profesiju? Kako se oni štite? Štite se na taj način što presaviju tabak i prijave napad policiji. Policija dalje radi svoj posao. To ne radi komora advokatska, komora zdravstva i tome slično. Znači, samo treba čitati zakone i videti svoja prava, ali i obaveze. Kada mi pročitamo svoje zakone, prava i obaveze, lako ćemo doći u situaciju da se štitimo. Svi, ne samo vi i ja ili gospođa Skrozza.

RSE: Kada televizija sa milionskim auditorijumom etiketira i targetira novinare na ovaj način, da li je zadatak Regulatornog tela za elektronske medije da kontroliše rad televizije koja na takav način izveštava?

Gajović: Kada biste pročitali Zakon o elektronskim medijima, onda biste shvatili šta radi i čime se bavi Regulatorno telo elektronskih medija, i to je onda pitanje za njih, a ne za Ministarstvo kulture i informisanja i državnog sekretara.

RSE: Ali i sami govorite o tome da imate komandnu odgovornost za stanje u medijima?

Gajović: Ne, tu ste u velikoj zabludi. Ja imam svoja prava i ovlašćenja. Moja ovlašćenja zadiru samo u okviru zakona koji postoje u Republici Srbiji. I ja se tih zakona držim kao pijan plota. Izvan toga, nemam nadležnosti da bilo gde istupam izvan tih zakona jer onda kršim zakon. Mi ćemo osuditi svaku vrstu fizičkog napada, pa takođe osuđujemo i napade na novinare. Mi smo protiv svake vrste zastrašivanja, uskraćivanja slobode govora i naročito smo protiv govora mržnje, to je potpuno jasno.

RSE: Ali niste javno osudili.

Gajović: Vi očekujete da mi napravimo konferenciju za štampu ili agencijama damo neko svoje mišljenje?

RSE: Mislite da za to nema razloga?

Gajović: Nije u pitanju da li ima ili nema razloga, nego jednostavno to nije naša ingerencija da osuđujemo ili ne osuđujemo.

RSE: Čija je onda ingerencija, ako ni REM nije reagovao?

Gajović: Skupština Republike Srbije bira članove Regulatornog tela i ona je nadležna za njih. Regulatorno telo godišnje izveštava Skupštinu o svom radu, a ne Ministarstvo kulture i informisanja. To je relacija.

RSE: Ali vas pitam za mišljenje, da li je trebalo da reaguju?

Gajović: Opet bi morali da čitate Zakon o elektronskim medijima, pa ćete videti i čime se bavi REM. Oni su tu da nadziru program. U Zakonu je to vrlo taksativno navedeno, čitava lepeza onoga što treba da rade, ako oni smatraju da nešto nije onako kako je zakonom predviđeno, od prekršajnih prijava do zabrane emitovanja programa. U tom nekom smislu, Regulatorno telo treba da radi svoj posao.

Oni su u svom biću potpuno nezavisni i ne može njih da opominje Ministarstvo kulture i informisanja za ove ili one propuste. Mi možemo, a to i radimo, da razgovaramo sa njima, razmenjujemo neka iskustva, pomažemo im da bolje rade jer za vašu informaciju, REM ima velikih problema.

Oni već duže vremena rade bez statuta, a za to je opet zadužena Narodna skupština. Duže vremena rade u okrnjenom sastavu, bez tri člana. Oni nemaju, nisam siguran da li je to direktor ili predsednik, mislim da je direktor REM-a. Nemaju ga, već postoji zamenik. Oni nemaju finansijski plan, znači o su sve problemi…

RSE: Ponoviću pitanje, da li mislite da su napravili „propust“. Da li vi, kao državni sekretar u Ministarstvu kulture i informisanja, mislite da je REM trebalo da reaguje na napade na Tamaru Skrozzu?

Gajović: Ja lično, kao građanin Republike Srbije, mislim da jeste, ali ne samo REM, nego sam za to da država i državni organi reaguju na svaku silu, na svako uskraćivanje bilo kojih sloboda.

RSE: Da li mislite da se, kada se na ovakav način targetiraju, novinari dovode u opasnost? Podsetiću vas da su pre nekoliko dana kolegu sa televizije N1 Nikolu Radišića na ulici napale dve osobe, uz pljuvanje i pretnje, kao “američkog” i “izdajničkog”. Ovu televiziju upravo kao „američku“ etiketira predsednik Srbije, a ministar policije i funkcioneri vladajuće Srpske napredne stranke i kao „CIA televiziju“ koja „radi protiv Vlade Srbije“. Da li postoji odgovornost za javno izgovorenu reč, koja može dovesti do ovoga?

Gajović: Svako nosi odgovornost samo za sebe. Moram da vam postavim pitanje u ovom intervjuu, kada već govorimo o napadima na novinare – kada će se istražiti napad na Dragana Milanovića 5. oktobra (Dragoljub Milanović, nekadašnji direktor Radiotelevizije Srbije koji je služio desetogodišnju kaznu zatvora zbog odgovornosti za pogibiju 16 radnika RTS-a tokom NATO bombardovanja 1999. godine, prim. aut.)?

RSE: Razgovaramo o napadu koji se dogodio pre nekoliko dana, na kolegu Nikolu Radišića i to nije argument.

Gajović: A što mislite da je napad na gospodina Radišića značajniji nego napad na generalnog direktora RTS-a? Namerno, ne samo vi, niti vam išta zameram, ćemo da preskočimo napade na Dragana Milanovića, ali ćemo uvek potencirati ove, pod znacima navoda, nezavisne novinare, koji na ovaj ili onaj način istupaju, i koji nisu na izvestan način, hajde da upotrebim tu reč, provladini novinari.

Moram da ponovim da ću ja, kao i Ministarstvo, osuditi i nikada nećemo stati iza bilo koga ko primenjuje silu u ovoj zemlji. Iz tog razloga, osuđujem naravno svaki napad, pa i na gospodina Radišića, s tim što moram da priznam da kada me pitate za taj napad nisam baš potpuno informisan o kakvom napadu se radi.

RSE: Na ulici su mu dva napadača prišla uz pljuvanje i psovke, „američku“ i „izdajničku“, da ne citiram dalje, su mu pretili da više ne prolazi tom ulicom. On je novinar, javna ličnost, koji prolazi ulicama ovog grada.

Gajović: Ako se to zaista desilo, onda apsolutno to treba…

RSE: Zašto mislite da se to nije desilo?

Gajović: Vi imate samo jednu stranu da je on to doživeo što je doživeo. Ali, pravi novinari i prave redakcije moraju imati i drugu stranu.

RSE: Koju drugu stranu, napadače?

Gajović: Pazite da vam kažem, je l’ gospodin Radišić to prijavio policiji?

RSE: Jeste, advokati TV N1 su podneli krivične prijave.

Gajović: Mene kao građanina ove zemlje najviše interesuje šta policija kaže o tome, da li su pohvatani napadači, mene interesuje njihova verzija, tih koji su pohvatani. Da li su oni to zaista uradili ili nisu.

Ja sam napadan u prethodnih nekoliko meseci iz svih oružja, iz određenog lobija i uz određene snage. Nikada, ni vi, ni ti koji su prenosili te napade, niko me nije nazvao da me pita šta ja mislim o tome. Da li mislite da je to novinarstvo?

RSE: Ko vas je napadao?

Gajović: To nas sad vodi u jednu sasvim drugu priču.

RSE: Recite nam, jer nas optužujete da se ne bavimo napadima na vas…

Gajović: Ne osuđujem ja vas ništa, govorim generalno da su postojali mediji koji su prenosili napade iz određenog lobija, iz određenog interesa, nekih određenih ljudi, na mene. Mene nikada niko nije nazvao i pitao šta ja mislim o tome i da li je to tačno.

RSE: Dobro, ja ću navesti još neke od konkretnih, novih slučajeva. Ulaz u zgradu Doma novinara izlepljen je plakatima na kojima je Nezavisno udruženje novinara Srbije označeno kao „Nesrećno udruženje neprijatelja Srbije“, imamo pretnje uredniku agencije Beta Draganu Janjiću, koje je u odgovoru na upit RSE osudilo i vaše Ministarstvo, predsedniku Nezavisnog društva novinara Vojvodine Nedimu Sejdinoviću stizale su pretnje smrću… Ako sam propustila neke druge napade, ispravite me. Ko se još sa ovim suočava?

Gajović: Naravno da ćemo svake napade osuditi, ali ja volim da vidim na kraju, kada se podvuče crta, šta iza tih napada stoji, ko stoji i da li stoji.

RSE: Nema, ni u slučaju Nikole Radišića, rezultata istrage. Nedim Sejdinović je prijavljivao pretnje smrću…

Gajović: Da li ste sigurni da je on to dobijao?

RSE: Šta hoćete da kažete?

Gajović: Mi moramo da utvrdimo istinu, a istina je samo jedna. Ako ja sada, na svom Fejsbuku ili Instagram stranama, iako se time ne bavim, stavim da sam napadnut, da sam ispljuvan, da ovo, da ono…

RSE: To su pretnje koje su njemu stizale, nije ih on pisao.

Gajović: A da li ste vi sigurni da nije on organizovao to pisanje da bi sebe predstavio kao žrtvu? S obzirom da gospodina Selimovića jako dobro poznajem…

RSE: Preziva se Sejdinović.

Gajović: Sejdinović, izvinjavam se. Jako ga dobro poznajem, imali smo prilike da se u više navrata srećemo, nedavno smo imali i neko zajedničko gostovanje, i mislim da je to čovek koji nema dobre namere.

RSE: U ovoj zemlji ubijeno troje novinara. Slavko Ćuruvija je ubijen upravo posle etiketiranja i napada kojima je bio izložen u javnom prostoru.

Gajović: Imamo zaista jedan broj nerazjašnjenih ubistava novinara, ali takođe imamo i određeni broj napada na novinare koji do danas nisu procesirani jer su jednostavno negde zapeli u istrazi ili već ne znam u kojoj fazi. Mislim da ti slučajevi nikada nisu zatvoreni, već da se na njima radi. Uostalom, postoji Komisija, koju predvodi gospodin Veran Matić, koja se bavi upravo tim slučajevima.

Sa njim sam pre nekoliko dana imao mogućnost da malo razgovaram na tu temu i rekao sam mu da bi možda mogao da se priključi Radnoj grupi za izradu medijske strategije iz prostog razloga što se medijska strategija bavi i bezbednošću jedne profesije, odnosno ljudi koji rade u medijima.

U tom smislu, ja sam da se svi slučajevi, koji su nerazjašnjeni, a uzeti su u procesiranje, svakako privedu kraju. I zalažem se da dobijemo odgovore na sva pitanja koja nas prethodnih decenija more, pa i slučaja ubistva gospodina Ćuruvije, kao i napad na Dragana Milanovića 5. oktobra, generalnog direktora RTS-a i svih drugih.

RSE: Vraćam se na nedavne događaje. Tužilaštvo je odbacilo krivične prijave novinara koji su napadnuti na inauguraciji predsednika Srbije, to je razlog iz kog su Asocijacija medija i Asocijacija online medija suspendovali učešće u Stalnoj radnoj grupi za bezbednost novinara. U Beogradu je prošlog meseca bila delegacija Evropske federаcije novinаrа koja je, uz ostalo, preporučila srpskim vlastima da bezuslovno štite slobodu medija, a sve slučajeve ugrožavanja novinara brzo i efikasno procesuiraju.

Gajović: Sa dotičnima sam imao neposredan susret. Mi smo ih primili u Ministarstvu kulture i informisanja i obavili smo razgovor. Posle nekih 45 minuta oni su, po mom blagom utisku, napustili Ministarstvo prilično zatečeni. Kada sam dve nedelje kasnije dobio taj dopis, bio sam zatečen. Mislim da su oni to napisali pre nego što su došli u Srbiju. Jer, ako oni u tom dopisu navode nešto što očekuju da mi uradimo, a ja im predočio da smo mi to već uradili i dokazao da smo to uradili, a oni to napisali, onda dozvolite da zaključujem da su oni to napisali pre nego što su došli.

Došli su jako dobro pripremljeni, sa određenim pitanjima. Međutim, kada sam tražio konkretne dokaze, činjenice, samo su rekli – ugrožena je sloboda novinarstva. Ja sam pitao da mi kažu na šta tačno misle i koji su to primeri. Oni meni nijedan primer nisu dali. A onda sam ja njima dao da je tokom 2016. i 2017. procesirano preko 200 ili 300 prijava novinara da su bili napadani, da im je uskraćena sloboda kretanja, mišljenja, iznošenja misli, a samo sedam je tužilaštvo uzelo kao ozbiljnu stvar.

Oni nas posmatraju kao da smo banana zemlja i kao da je ovde divlji zapad. Ovde nije divlji zapad, mi nismo banana država, već imamo zakone po kojima treba da se ponašamo, koji su harmonizovani sa evropskom praksom i evropskim zakonima. Zanimljivo je da oni u tom izveštaju to uopšte ne pominju, već kao da ovde ništa ne postoji.

RSE: Kažete da je od 300 prijava samo sedam uzeto u razmatranje. Šta vama to govori, da novinari prijavljuju napade bez osnova?

Gajović: A da li je prijava napada na novinara kada se dva novinara potuku u kafani, što se inače vrlo često događa. Kako to tretirati?

RSE: Primer koji nije tuča u kafani su i novinari koji su napadnuti na inauguraciji predsednika. Podneli su prijave, koje je tužilaštvo odbacilo. Videli ste fotografije napada, mislite da ni tu nije bilo mesta rekaciji?

Gajović: Imam veliko poverenje u državne organe i imam veliko poverenje da se drže slova zakona. Prema tome, ako su te prijave odbačene, znači da nije bilo mogućnosti da se pokrene bilo kakav postupak u vezi tog slučaja.

RSE: Još jednu Radnu grupu su napustila novinarska udruženja, onu za izradu Medijske strategije. Ministar kulture je rekao da je gotova. Da li ste je vi pročitali?

Gajović: Juče sam počeo da čitam. Medijska strategija se sastoji iz tri dela, analize, strateških ciljeva i akcionog plana. Analiza je gotova, strateški ciljevi su tu negde, akcioni plan možemo da donesemo i posle javne rasprave. Javna rasprava nam je jako važna.

RSE: Da li će se i koliko Strategija menjati u javnoj raspravi?

Gajović: Potpuno, ako postoje osnove. Ovo govorim na osnovu iskustva iz 2013. godine, kada sam bio član Radne grupe za izradu seta medijskih zakona. Na tim javnim raspravama smo imali jako dobrih sugestija, primedbi, jako dobrih rešenja. Samo glup čovek ne bi usvojio to i ugradio u zakone. Isto će biti i sa Strategijom. Mene interesuje strašno šta će reći ljudi u Subotici, Novom Sadu, Kragujevcu, Nišu, Novom Pazaru. To je nekih pet gradova gde je plan da napravimo javnu raspravu.

Medijska strategija nije zakon, medijska strategija je vizija koja nam služi u narednih pet godina. Ona predviđa mogućnost da medijski bude svima nama bolje, koji se bavimo medijima. U tom smislu, ona je dobar osnov da u drugoj polovini godine pokrenemo izmene i dopune ona tri medijska zakona. Uviđam da su mnoge situacije iz 2013. godine malo prevaziđene i zastarele, mnogo ima i novih medija, mnogo platformi.

U tom nekom smislu, naravno da je sve podložno promenama, ako one imaju osnov i ako proceni Radna grupa, organi koji se bave time, da ih treba menjati. Mislim da se svi trudimo da bude mnogo bolje.

RSE: Da li Strategija ima legitimitet, ako su Radnu grupu za njenu izradu napustila glavna novinarska udruženja?

Gajović: Na to pitanje mogu da odgovorim kontra pitanjem. A gde piše da medijska udruženja treba da budu članovi Radne grupe? Nigde ne piše da oni moraju da budu. To je jedna stvar.

Druga stvar je da se, nažalost, mnogo više govori o onima koji su napustili Radnu grupu, a gotovo se uopšte ne pominje onih 12. U pitanju je Radna grupa od 16 ljudi i uopšte se ne govori o onih 12 ljudi, koji su krvavo radili u prethodnom periodu da iznedre Medijsku strategiju. Među tih 12, ima ih jako puno upravo iz udruženja. Prema tome, netačno je da su radnu grupu napustila…

RSE: Udruženja koja okupljaju najveći broj članova. NUNS sa 3 702 člana, UNS koji je, prema podacima iz protekle godine, imao 2 306 članova sa plaćenom članarinom … Koliko su reprezentativna udruženja o kojima vi govorite, koja su ostala u Radnoj grupi?

Gajović: Mogu ponovo da izrazim žaljenje što su oni napustili članstvo. Smatram da to nije dobro jer ako je država poverila nekome da uradi jedan posao, a oni prihvatili da ga urade pa ga nisu završili, ja to zovem neodgovornošću.

RSE: Naveli su razloge napuštanja.

Gajović: Ako ćemo da razmatramo te razloge, doći ćemo vrlo lako do zaključka da ti razlozi ne postoje. Oni su postojali, osim kada je u pitanju UNS, i u julu mesecu, kada je formirana grupa. Metodologija, koju je pomoćnik ministra kulture i informisanja postavio u julu 2017., i koju su prihvatili svi članovi grupe, su postojali i tada.

RSE: Razlozi su i neefikasnost, urušavanje kredibiliteta i obesmišljavanje rada Radne grupe. Vi kažete da je u njoj šest ili sedam predstavnika Vlade. Sa izlaskom novinarskih udruženja, ocene su da Strategiju donose ljudi bliski vlasti?

Gajović: Ne, to apsolutno nije utemeljeno. Prethodnu Strategiju je donelo sedam ili osam članova radne grupe, od kojih samo jedan nije bio iz državne vlasti. Sada ih je bilo šest iz državnog dela, a ostalih je bilo deset. Deset ljudi koji ne pripadaju vlasti.

RSE: Sada je taj broj smanjen, izlaskom predstavnika udruženja koja okupljaju najveći broj članova.

Gajović: Smanjen je za četiri, ali još uvek je pandan. Ali, ne volim to poređenje koje ste vi stavili iz jednog razloga. Ovde nije stvar da li je Medijska strategija državna ili udruženja novinara. Ovo je zajednički posao, koji moramo da uradimo. Znači, mi moramo da se borimo za našu profesiju i baš me briga, mene kao člana grupe, da li je neko iz države ili ne. Ja te podele ne volim.

Mi smo dali mogućnost da se to četvoro koji su napustili vrate i nismo popunjavali Radnu grupu sa drugima. Uvek mogu da se vrate. Kroz javnu raspravu očekujemo da oni učestvuju. Zamerio sam kolegama iz Evrope jer su rekli da se uzmu u obzir svi prilozi članova Radne grupe koji su je napustili. Ja sam im rekao da su svi njihovi prilozi uzeti jer su dragoceni, oni su jako dobro radili. Svi su uzeti i imam uveravanja ljudi koji rade na tome da su uzeti.

RSE: Proteklog vikenda opozicija je protestovala ispred RTS-a posle neuspelih razgovora sa predstavnicima Upravnog odbora o izveštavanju uoči izbora u Beogradu 4. marta. Uz televizije poput Pinka, koji direktno prenosi svaku konferenciju za medije predsednika Srbije i TV Happy, koje su privatne, opozicija se okreće RTS-u kao servisu svih građana.

Gajović: Medijski javni servis, kao i sve televizije koje imaju nacionalnu pokrivenost, dobili su licencu na osnovu koje imaju nacionalnu pokrivenost. Treba da budu pod kapom REM-a, odnosno Regulatorno telo treba da vrši nadzor. Ne mogu ja da ih kontrolišem, njih ne kontroliše Ministarstvo za kulturu i informisanje.

Ako sam dobro razumeo, oni zahtevaju smenu generalnog direktora, glavnog i odgovornog urednika informativnog programa i predsednika Upravnog odbora zbog ugroženosti predizbornog dela.

Međutim, bez obzira što je legitimno pravo svakoga da izađe na protest, mora se poštovati zakon. Zakon o medijskim javnim servisima do detalja reguliše kako se menja i generalni direktor i predsednik Upravnog odbora RTS-a. Regulatorno telo bira članove i predsednika Upravnog odbora. Znači, to je pod nezavisnim Regulatornim telom za elektronske medije.

RSE: Za vas pitanje, da li znate da je bivši direktor Etnografskog muzeja i jedan od vaših prethodnika na mestu državnog sekretara Miroslav Tasić bio na skupu podrške rehabilitaciji Milana Nedića koji su organizovale ekstremno desničarske organizacije, i tokom kojeg su se mogli videti nacistički pozdravi?

Gajović: Miroslav Tasić Tasa je, pre svega, moj drug i prijatelj. Vrlo se često viđamo, ali sa ovim o čemu vi pričate, zaista nisam upoznat i ne znam zašto je on tamo bio. Verovatno da je imao neke svoje motive.

AJM organized training for journalists, lawyers and public prosecutors

AJM

13/02/2018

SKOPJE, 13.02.2018 – The Association of Journalists of Macedonia held a two-day training between the 8^th and 10^th of February, titled: “The Practice of the European Court of Human Rights and the Public Prosecution of Macedonia with cases of media freedom“.

On the training, journalists, lawyers and public prosecutors had the opportunity to learn more about “freedom of expression” from Dr. Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska – ex-ECHR judge, Ivana Trajceva – Public Prosecutor, Elizabeta Nedanovska – PR advisor at the Public Prosecution.

According to AJM, this type of training sessions helps to improve co-operation between journalists and Public Prosecutor’s by examining cases related to freedom of expression. The President of AJM, Naser Selmani, addressed the participants of the training and pointed out that only well-trained journalists familiar with their rights and responsibilities can professionally perform the journalistic profession.

Regarding the relations between journalists and institutions, Selmani emphasised that drastic changes should be made. “Unfortunately, they have a poor cooperation. When journalists are being sued, institutions are being effective, and even support unsubstantiated accusations that lead to inadequate penalties and unlawful imprisonment. However, when journalists are victims, then the institutions do not act accordingly, i.e. the cases are being stuck in the police-prosecutor’s labyrinths,” Selmani said.

The French Ambassador to Macedonia, H.E. Christian Thimonier, also addressed the participants. He said that defending the principles contained in the European Convention for Human Rights should always be set as a priority in both journalism and the judiciary, because they are based on European values.

„The internet is becoming more important as a platform for sharing and receiving information, on day-by-day bases, ergo for the freedom of speech, which is why we need journalists that will do their work professionally in accordance with the main ethical principles. Of course, this applies to judges, prosecutors and lawyers, or they risk creating a disorganised ether of information similar to a jungle”, he said.

The representative of the Foundation Conrad Adenauer, Davor Pasoski said that the Foundation is an old partner of the AJM and he announced that during the year he expects to organize few other joint activities as well.

This training was organized with the help of the Foundation Konrad Adenauer, European Union and the French Embassy in Macedonia.

Verbal attacks on journalists by pro-government Serb media

IJAS

13/02/2018

BELGRADE, 13.02.2018. – Reporters Without Borders (RSF) condemns a series of threats and verbal attacks by pro-government media against four journalists on social networks in recent days, in the run-up to local elections in Belgrade and two other municipalities, and calls on the authorities to punish those responsible.

The victims include Tamara Skrozza, who was for several days the target of a smear campaign and hate messages orchestrated by TV Pink, a pro-government commercial TV channel, in response to a report by the Centre for Research, Transparency and Accountability (CRTA), an NGO of which Skrozza is a member, analysing TV Pink’s political coverage.

The report showed that members of the leadership of the ruling Serbian Progressive Party (SNS) appeared four times more often than the opposition on Pink TV from October to January, the three months before the official start of the municipal election campaign.

Ever since the report’s publication, Pink TV has been portraying Skrozza as an “enemy of the state” bent on harming President Aleksander Vucic. The attacks on her have been so virulent that the CRTA and the Independent Journalists’ Association of Serbia (NUNS) asked TV viewers on 29 January to complain to the Regulatory Authority for Electronic Media (REM).

However, although 300 complaints were received within a few days, the REM said that it did not think Pink TV had violated any standards that it was not going to take any measures.

This is not the first time that Skrozza, a veteran journalist who writes for the weekly Vreme, has been targeted by the Serbian media, especially tabloids, but the attacks have never been so ferocious in the past.

Showing that all criticism will be punished

The pro-government media’s goal is always the same: to show that any journalist, Serbian or Kosovar, who criticizes the Serbian government will be subjected to reprisals.

The intensity of the current attacks on dissent can be attributed to the imminence of the 4 March municipal elections. The fight for control of the Belgrade city hall is crucial for the ruling party, which until now has been weaker in the capital than the rest of the country.

“We firmly condemn this latest campaign of intimidation against Serbian journalists and call on the authorities to denounce and punish those responsible,” said Pauline Adès-Mével, the head of RSF’s EU-Balkans desk. “The Regulatory Authority for Electronic Media must do its job. It must deal with the complaints it receives and must impose sanctions on broadcasters when necessary, as in this case involving Pink TV.”

The offensive against Skrozza was the fourth in a series of attacks against independent journalists by pro-government media in less than a week.

Spate of attacks

After Una Hajdari, a Kosovo-based journalist, posted a humorous photomontage on Twitter about President Vucic’s 20 January visit to Kosovo, she was attacked on social networks by the president’s supporters, who accused her of “hating Serbia, the Serbs and Vucic.”

NUNS vice-president Dragan Janjic, the editor of the independent news agency Beta, received hundreds of insults and hate message on social networks the same week after angering Vucic by suggesting that Kosovo Serb politician Oliver Ivanović’s murder on 16 January was “motivated by political considerations.”

Nikola Radisic, a journalist with N1, a TV channel that is a CNN International partner, was verbally aggressed on the street by two men, who accused him of being “an American spy and a traitor” and told him to never set foot “in this street” again.

Radisic filed a complaint, while the NUNS and the Independent Journalists’ Association of Vojvodina (NDNV) called on the authorities to identify those responsible for this act of aggression and to guarantee Radisic’s safety. The NUNS was itself also targeted by unidentified persons, who affixed posters to the facade of its headquarters accusing it of being an “enemy of Serbia.”

Ironically, these attacks coincided with a visit to Belgrade by a delegation from the European Federation of Journalists (EFJ) to urge President Vucic to stop stigmatizing certain media outlets as “foreign agents” and to call for an end to the spiral of impunity for acts of violence against journalists.

The European Parliament’s rapporteur on Serbia, David McAllister, has meanwhile stressed that Serbia “needs to make clear progress in respecting the independence of the media” if it wants to succeed in its bid to join the European Union. Serbia is ranked 66th out of 180 countries in RSF’s 2017 World Press Freedom Index.

Reporteri bez granica osuđuju pretnje „provladinih medija“ pojedinim novinarima

IJAS

13/02/2018

BEOGRAD, 13.02.2018. – Organizacija Reporteri bez granica (RSF) osudila da je danas pretnje i verbalne napade “provladinih medija” na četiri srpska novinara na društvenim mrežama.

Kako se navodi, napadi su se dogodili tokom kampanje za lokalne izbore u Beogradu i još dve opštine u Srbiji.

U saopštenju RSF piše da su na meti napada bile novinarka nedeljnika Vreme Tamara Skroza, kosovska novinarka Una Hajdari, glavni urednik agencije Beta Dragan Janjić i novinar N1 Nikola Radišić.

RSF ocenjuje da se intenzitet aktuelnih napada na neistomišljenike može pripisati kampanji za lokalne izbore 4. marta.

“Borba za kontrolu za skupštinu Beograda je ključna za vladajuću partiju koja je dosad bila slabija u prestonici nego u ostatku zemlje”, dodaje RSF.

Podsetimo, nedavno je Nezavisno udruženje novinara Srbije (NUNS) pozvalo nadležne organe da preduzmu mere protiv pojedinaca koji na društvenim mrežama otvoreno pozivaju na linč Dragana Janjića, potpredsednika NUNS-a i glavnog i odgovornog urednika novinske agencije Beta.

Kako je NUNS saopštio, bezbednost Dragana Janjića je direktno ugrožena jer se na pojedinim fejsbuk stranicama nude podaci o njegovoj adresi stanovanja, a hajka je indikativno pokrenuta sponzorisanom objavom, što govori da se radi o organizovanoj kampanji protiv njega.

Takođe, advokati TV N1 podneli su krivičnu prijavu protiv nepoznatih učinilaca zbog pretnji novinaru televizije N1 Nikoli Radišiću.

Radišiću su nedavno u centru Beograda prišla dva NN lica i, uz pljuvanje i vikanje, psovali „mater “američku” i “izdajničku”. Jedan mu je poručio i “da te nisam video da si prošao ovom ulicom” uz psovke i pretnje šta će se desiti “ako ga vidi”.

Consequences of media market anomalies in BiH and their impact on pluralism of opinions, public and approach by citizens to objective, fair and balanced information

BHJA

12/02/2018

SARAJEVO, 12.02.2018.- Considering the number of printed, electronic and new media sources, we cannot say that media market in Bosnia and Herzegovina is prose and keel, that there is no media pluralism, but also media pluralism that does not follow pluralism in media.

Namely, there are 43 television stations in Bosnia and Herzegovina broadcasting their program through ground radio diffusion transmission and three are 38 TV stations broadcasting their program through other network sources; 138 radio stations, nine daily newspapers and 106 magazines, eight news agencies5 and tens of internet websites and other publications. However, media quantity (number of media houses) has never resulted in different approaches and sources, during the process of providing public with information. As a final outcome, there is the significant number of very similar, repeated information in different media houses with completely identical contents.

In this information misbalance, it is difficult to come across and find out objective, true, complete, verifiable and confirmed information. Original and authentic media contents seem to be missing as far as this issue is concerned. On the other hand, there is a great number of new information that does not represent the public interest. There are also sensational, false news which creates imaginary information and awareness. The audience keeps receiving a lot of information, but there is a very limited number of those that can, in fact, be seriously considered as utterly useful and beneficiary for end users (consumers). Internet has provided the public with faster and easier access to media contents, but it has not made impact to its usage and credibility (authenticity) for most viewers; on the contrary, in their aspiration to obtain more views of contents posted on the net, the administrators and web editors post the news whose titles attract the audience and viewers, although the content would remain completely useless.

Media bear most responsibility although viewers should, to some extent, feel responsible as well. Media entrepreneurs and their financiers have been completely orientated and aimed towards profit making in the first place; in fact, they would determine and define editing policies and rules of media house they finance. Journalists’ space here is limited for their autonomy while reporting, although in performing their tasks and duties assigned, they would still remain professional with dignity and would take responsibility towards the public and audience.

Additionally, their work would be based on ethical values and honesty however possible that may be at certain points. This implies that they are more focused on personal profit-making based interest, rather than being focused on general public interest and this outlines the lack of journalists’ responsibility, because of emerging deadlines that must be met, futility and complete search for something new, regardless how unimportant that may appear, personal interest based on profit making still remains a priority comparing to general public interest. Still, the good news is that media users are not left helpless and on their own. Any individual may have a better sight of wider media context and learn to interpret, value, analyze and even create media contents through educational programs regarding on media contents (programs), including media functioning and operating, ownership, legal relegations, types of reporting, criteria regarding news values, professionalism included etc. One could actually recognize and identify poor, false and useless content in media and protect oneself from this on one hand, and use media in the way it best suits him/her on the other hand; he/she could communicate through media, take active part in public discourse and improve their social position (status).

All of this is considered as media literacy issue, which, considering the existing media scene in Bosnia and Herzegovina is not only important but also considered required and rather necessary. Taking into consideration that media educational programs are not constituent parts of educational system Bosnia and Herzegovina, that there are no media education programs for adults either, that, (with an exception of certain non – governmental projects on the state level), there are no activities taken regarding the media literacy implementation programs for public, media houses are consequently left with self – education only. If one has minimum knowledge of information technology and internet sources using, he or she could have access to a great number of textual, audio and video contents regarding media literacy, thus creating at least minimum media education steps for him/her.

Therefore, there is media pluralism, but there is no pluralism in media in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Media houses are completely financially dependent which directly impacts the quality of their work. Profit-making has become key imperative which reduces the space for the truth, responsibility and ethical values. Media literacy is most logical and most useful solution for audience; it is only a matter of to what level would the state and governing authority officials show interest in its implementation, since governing officials, through the use of media sources may manipulate with the public, unless the public is not aware of media literacy and its importance.

This text is a part of E-Bulletin– third edition of special serial of BHN online bulletin implemented through the “Media and Public Reputation” (origin. “Mediji i javni ugled”) project, also representing a contribution to public debate regarding the transparency of media ownership and upholding and encouraging the passing of set of laws aimed to advance media field and information market in BiH.

Correctness and interest should be in conjunction

TUMM

12/02/2018

PODGORICA, 12.02.2018. – When it comes to LGBTIQ+ population the media in Montenegro are evolving and mostly respect journalistic standards and the branch code. So the texts are in majority neutral and objective and they are written in terminology that is acceptable from the human rights point of view.This progress is unfortunately followed by citizens’hate speech allowed by untimely administrated comments on portals and complete lack of control of new communication platforms which the media are using in their competition for the wider public.

What is missing is that sincere interest in LGBTIQ+population problematic, more stories about LGBTIQ+ individuals and more media programs. All for the goal of completing the role of media given by the part of American authors Bill Kovach and Tim Rosenstill and that is „to give people information which is needed to be free and to participate in managing themselves.“

There are no exact data, at least not those available to the public by the Internet search, in case of how the media has progressed during the last few years in the reports about the human rights of one of the most marginalized groups in Montenegro.NGO “Juventas” hasanalyzed media content and reports about LGBTIQ+ population in 2010 and 2011 within the Report about human rightssituation of LGBT persons in Montenegro in 2011. It should be mentioned as well that in the last seven years the situation in the country has significantly changed when it comes to the media. The electronic media and social networks are used more as platforms for informing, but as well as the place where media consumers can be active participants.

In the NGO “Juventas” report is stated that „the representation of media publications with LGBT thematic has significantly grown in 2010, especially when it comes to publications which deal with a local context. Juventas is considering that the situation is direct consequence of Juventas’startup of one of the first projects oriented towards improving the position of LGBT persons in Montenegrin society,Montenegro-a bright spot on the gay map.“

Media interest in LGBT thematicstill continues and is evident. However it should be emphasized that it mainly concerns reports from events, press releases, analysis of publications presented by non-governmental organizations, reactions to events that attract public attention like-violence. It misses human stories, documentary programs,TV series, movies which should as well contribute to informing public about everydayproblems of LGBTIQ+ population and how they overcome them.Yet the media have been trying to cover the Pride,but contents, which are not only considering this big event for the community, are still lacking. The answers for the lack of media products regarding LGBTIQ+ population should be sought from media owners and editors.

Whether due to still low visibility of LGBTIQ+ persons or the obstacle of reaching the interlocutors,mostly only LGBT activists continue to appear in the media. In Montenegro there are few persons that are declared as members of LGBTIQ+ population. However that shouldn’t be an excuse for the lack of media content dealing with othermembers of sexual and gender minorities.

Juventas has noticed that the biggest difference in analyzedmedia results in 2010 and 2011 are in the numberof texts which are dealing with LGBT topics in the local and foreign context. The media are giving advantage to the local context and that is definitely a progress. Yet we shouldn’t forget that in time of mass media there are no limits. Therefore it should be written about global phenomenon and persons that are not from Montenegro, who are very influential especially if that is a case with role model for young people. The media should be – up to date- and they should adapt and offer content to LGBTIQ+ persons.

Still in majority media content promotesheteronormativity which can be easily noticed throughprogramanalysis such as TV series, movies, and documentaries, educational and similar programs. That’s why it should be worked on programs that are not only dedicated to the LGBTIQ+ population, but also include various topics which are considering gender and sexual minorities. One of the media functions is to maintain democratic values and to promote human rights with a goal that the majority allows minority’s voice to be heard.

It is noticeable that journalists are more and more understanding that the freedom of speech and hate speech are not the same. In their search for-the other side of the story- and the urge to be objective, Montenegrin media in the years have sought to have interlocutors that promote heterosexuality as the only right social norm, neglecting other sexual orientations.

Often media context were full of hate speech oriented towards groups and individuals who are not living by heteronormativity hidden under the cape of ‚‚the other side“. Now there is less of this journalistic excommunication, however advocates of hatred for sexual and gender minorities are increasingly occupying a virtual space on social networks for which the media are not responsible even though it’s on their pages, profiles and similar. So the space of the social network is in the domains of the Law on public order and peace, so instead of the media there are individuals and non-governmentalorganizations as well as institutions that are responding and reporting hate speech. The media has downsized their responsibility on written, printed, what has been said, administrating comments and etc. That’s why it is possible to find hate speech in the comments that unequivocally discriminate LGBT+ population even though the media context is correct and objective.

“When it comes to actors of media reports they are mainly written about LGBT persons (70%), rarelylike actors appear LGBT organizations (22%) and LGBT individuals (8%)” – this was one of the NGO “Juventas” observations a few years ago. The situation has changed because at that moment in Montenegro there was only one LGBT organization with one representative. Today in the country there are a few organizations dealing with this topic, so there are a few public ‚‚out of the closet“ persons. However media contents are still reduced to news, reports and interviews. The journalistic form should be more diverse when it comes to LGBTIQ+ population not just society, economy, politics and similar. The things that are missing are reports, columns, articles… these forms will show the public that is not just about some marginalized groups, and it is about people who are our neighbors, friends and family.

The media in Montenegro follow and respect the journalistic code. They have mastered the terminology which should be used when they ‚‚step on the LGBTIQ+ territory“. Still media representatives should master the skills of sincere interest for this thematic. To search for life stories, but also forms and ways of presentation of everyday life circumstances of gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transgender, transsexuals, intersex, queer and other gender and sexual minorities. And the hate speech of the heterosexual majority in the comments and on the social networks should not allowed overpowering the voice of minorities that have been heard through the neutral media content.

Kristina Ćetković

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.

Serbia’s government to finance serbian language media in Kosovo

AJK

12/02/2018

PRISTINA, 12.02.2018 – Government of Serbia has opened a call for co-financing media projects thus inviting Serbian language media in Kosovo to participate in grants.

Serbia’s ministry of culture allocated nine million dinars (around 75.000 euro) to award media content through competition on exclusive topics such as preservation and development of Serbian national and cultural identity in Kosovo, Kossev news portal reports.

The project aims also to support media content that will “contribute to true, unbiased and full information to citizens that live in Kosovo and Metohia”.

The ministry of culture has also supported Serbian language media in Kosovo in 2016.

Revealing Corruption Remains Challenge for Balkan Media

IJAS

12/02/2018

BELGRADE, 12.02.2018. – Reporters on corruption and organised crime in the Balkans are subject to a range of different pressures and challenges – as our comparison of reporting on such cases in Bosnia, Kosovo and Serbia shows.

Organised crime and corruption are among the key challenges facing the societies of the Western Balkans, with corruption in particular being a key grievance for ordinary citizens and voters.

As in any democracy, the media play a crucial role when it comes to informing the public on these subjects and shaping public debates.

The extent to which the media are able to do so objectively and independently will help the public to both better understand the scale of the problem and assess what their elected representatives and institutions, tasked with upholding the rule of law, are doing to combat organised crime and corruption.

During 2017, BIRN conducted a regional study that examined how the media report on organised crime and corruption in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo and Serbia.

Aside from the looking at how media report on the topic, the study also sought to unpack why media report on organised crime and corruption in the way they do.

Specifically, our study sought to identify the challenges and constraints faced by media organisations across the region when it comes to reporting on organised crime and corruption.

Key Findings

Across Bosnia, Kosovo and Serbia, one of our key findings is that external pressure – whether from political, business or criminal circles – is an important factor, which shapes and constrains how the media report on organised crime and corruption. At the same time, the way in which this pressure manifests itself and constrains the work of journalists and media outlets varies across the region.

The purpose of this instrumentalisation is not only to paint a picture of a government actively engaged in fighting organised crime and corruption, but, more worryingly, to attack and discredit opponents – and even allies – of the ruling party.Serbia stands out as the most extreme case, with media reports on organised crime and corruption widely seen as instrumentalised by the ruling elite in its efforts to maintain power through methods that go beyond what can be considered acceptable in a consolidated democracy.

This instrumentalisation of the media also serves to put pressure on prosecutors and judges, with the goal of ensuring a desired outcome in specific cases.

A similar situation is evident in Bosnia, where instrumentalisation of media reporting on organised crime and corruption, by a range of political factions, is clear. However, there are differences between the situation in Bosnia and in Serbia.

In Serbia, media reporting on organised crime and corruption is instrumentalised overwhelmingly by one political camp – the ruling party; in Bosnia, different competing political camps have successfully instrumentalised different sections of the Bosnian media.

In Kosovo, the media are also exposed to external pressure and influence, originating from politics as well as public and private enterprises, when it comes to reporting on organised crime and corruption.

However, there does not appear to be any clear evidence that instrumentalisation of media reporting on the topics is a widespread phenomenon.

Pressure on the media appears more often to be directed towards suppressingreporting that could be damaging to influential politicians and businessmen rather than encouraging reporting on the corrupt or criminal practices of rivals, as often appears the case in Bosnia and Serbia.

Access to information

Difficulties in accessing information and sources – both formal and informal – were found to be another crucial factor constraining the ability of the media to report on organised crime and corruption across the region.

In all three countries, journalists rarely complain about the lack of legal provisions for accessing information from officials and institutions. On the contrary, their complaint is that in practice institutions are often passive, or closed, when it came to communicating with the media.

An important finding of BIRN’s research is that in all three countries there is a lack of uniformity and consistency when it comes to how institutions and officials communicate with the media.

Frequently, even if formal strategies or guidelines exist on how rule of law institutions and officials should communicate with the media, they are not implemented. Often, such rules do not exist, or are not clear.

All of this has created a very mixed picture where, for example, one court or prosecutor’s office may be very open to media requests for information, while another may be extremely closed and non-responsive.

In such cases, our research found that personal contacts and the professionalism of particular media outlets or journalists also affect access to information, positively or negatively. This was particularly the view in Kosovo.

Independent journalists there who specialise in reporting on the topics in question are seen as having generally better access to information than others.

The political affiliation of particular media outlets is a key factor affecting access to information and sources, both official and unofficial.

Indeed, this appears to be a particularly important determinant of access to information in Bosnia and Serbia, while the data gathered suggests that it is not a key factor in Kosovo.

While some interlocutors in Kosovo claimed that media close to the government have better access to information and sources, those journalists interviewed largely rejected such claims. Serbia again presented an extreme case.

Access there to information, formal and especially informal, was strongly correlated with the closeness of a media outlet to the ruling party.

Indeed, many of those interviewed by BIRN openly talked about the existence of “privileged” media that enjoy preferential access to information.

A more complex picture emerges in Bosnia. The political affiliation of a media outlet there does affect access to information.

However, given the many levels of government and the large number of parties holding office at different levels of government in Bosnia, few media outlets were completely shut out of accessing information.

Professional challenges

Limited professional and technical capacities, along with security concerns, were a common constraint on media reporting on organised crime and corruption identified across Bosnia, Kosovo and Serbia.

Methodology

BIRN’s findings and research, presented in the three country reports, were built on a mix of in-depth interviews and media monitoring carried out during the first half of 2017.

In-depth interviews were conducted with 72 individuals during this period, of which 29 were in Bosnia, 22 in Kosovo and 21 in Serbia.

Among those interviewed were a range of current or former judges, prosecutors, policemen, lawyers, editors, journalists, politicians and experts. Most interviews were conducted in person, while in some cases, particularly in Kosovo, interviews were often conducted via email.

Where interviewees requested anonymity, we have refrained from naming them. In Bosnia, all interviews were conducted under the condition of anonymity. It should be stressed that the statements of interviewees have been carried as their views and observations, rather than as proven facts.

In addition to the in-depth interviews, BIRN also carried out a detailed media monitoring of reporting on organised crime and corruption investigations, arrests and court proceedings in all three countries.

The results of this media monitoring have been presented in the annexes to the country reports, as well as in the reports themselves, where appropriate.

The media monitoring was carried out from April to June 2017 and involved six media outlets in Bosnia and Serbia respectively and five in Kosovo.

The monitored media outlets were chosen in order to include a representative mix of electronic and printed, tabloid and non-tabloid media.

Journalists from Bosnia and Kosovo in some cases referred to fears for their own physical security as a constraint when writing on organised crime and corruption.

In particular, they referred to threats emanating from criminal circles in their respective countries, or the fear of receiving such threats.

Interestingly, such complaints were heard less often from journalists in Serbia, where self-censorship seemed a more fundamental constraint.

A common constraint on journalists in all three countries was fear of losing their jobs if they did not practice self-censorship, or if they persisted in writing on certain topics related to organised crime and corruption.

In all three countries, journalists and editors frequently complained about the lack of time and resources that they could devote to reporting on these topics. This, in turn, prevented them from investigating, or following, cases of organised crime or corruption in greater detail.

Another clear problem was the limited skills, knowledge and expertise of many journalists when it came to reporting on organised crime and corruption. On this point, opinions and perceptions varied a great deal, however.

A significant number of those interviewed as part of BIRN’s research, particularly those from the police, judiciary or prosecution, expressed a view that journalists often lacked the professional skills to report on organised crime and corruption. This was seen as a key obstacle to better reporting on these topics.

Many journalists agreed with such comments, noting that they often felt under-qualified to report on organised crime and corruption, particularly when it came to complex court proceedings.

Journalists working in electronic media complained in particular that they were unable to specialise in particular topics, unlike some of their colleagues in the print media.

However, it must be stressed that most of those interviewed as part of BIRN’s research – whether journalists or non-journalists – agreed that while many journalists lacked the professional capacities to report on organised crime and corruption effectively, there were also many excellent journalists in both Bosnia, Kosovo and Serbia who were entirely capable of investigating and reporting on these topics to a high standard.

In this context, interlocutors from Serbia in particular expressed the view that whatever the professional shortcomings of Serbian journalists, this was not the primary reason for the lack of good quality reporting.

Rather, in one way or another, they expressed their view that, particularly in the mainstream media, good journalists were held back from doing their job professionally due to political and other forms of pressure on media outlets. Similar sentiments were voiced in Bosnia and Kosovo.

The report was published as part of a project entitled ‘Exercising Freedom of Expression and the Openness of State Institutions in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo and Serbia’.

The project was implemented by the Balkan Investigative Regional Reporting Network – BIRN Hub, in partnership with BIRN Serbia and BIRN Kosovo, from April 2017 to January 2018, in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo and Serbia. It was supported by German Federal Foreign Office Stability Pact funds.

Nedopustivi napadi na novinare

IJAS

12/02/2018

BEOGRAD, 12.02.2018. – Najpre želim da ponovim moj stav da o kadrovskim rešenjima neću govoriti preko medija, izjavila je večeras premijerka Srbije Ana Brnabić, odgovarajući na zahtev Grupe za slobodu medija da smeni državnog sekretara za medije Aleksandra Gajovića i objasnila da je to njen stav koji je “poznat od ranije i on se neće promeniti”.

Smatram da su napadi na novinare ili bilo koga nedopustivi i da ih ne treba relativizovati, naglasila je Brnabić u pisanoj izjavi i podsetila da je još ranije ove nedelje javno osudila verbalni napad na Nikolu Radišića. “Iste večeri sam pozvala urednika N1 Jugoslava Ćosića, a moja savetnica za medije je razgovarala sa Nikolom Radišićem.

Bilo nam je važno da čujemo kako je i, od njih smo dobile informaciju da je Policija odmah reagovala na prijavu napada, što se nije moglo čuti u medijima”, ukazala je Brnabić. “Napadi, verbalni, a tek fizički, na predstavnike medija ili bilo koga su nedopustivi”, poručila je Brnabić i objasnila da je to “crvena linija i civilizacijska norma koju moramo poštovati”. “Možemo da ne delimo iste vrednosti i stavove, ali bilo kakva vrsta napada je nedopustiva i neće se tolerisati.

To se odnosi na sve medije, odnosno to mora biti standard za sve”, predočila je Brnabić. Ona smatra da “treba jednako da osudimo takvo ponašanje i kada se radi o fizičkom napadu na novinarku Pinka ili verbalnom napadu na novinara N1”. Brnabić napominje da se “isto odnosi na nedopustive i necivilizovane verbalne ispade nekih predstavnika medija i medijskih asocijacija koji sebi daju slobodu da na društvenim mrežama iznose najozbiljnije optužbe protiv legitimnih predstavnika vlasti Srbije”.

“Jedno je političko neslaganje, ali način na koji se iznosi političko neslaganje mora biti u skladu sa civilizacijskim normama”, precizirala je Brnabić. Povodom napada na Nikolu Radišića “ni jednom nismo čuli od predstavika novinarskih udruženja da je Policija reagovala brzo i krajnje profesionalno”, ponovila je Brnabić i ocenila da je “reakcija pripadnika MUP-a najbolji dokaz politike Vlade Srbije”.

Smatram da je, u interesu istine i objektivnosti, to neophodno naglasiti, “bez obzira što se profesionalna reakcija Policije ne uklapa u narativ da je u Srbiji ‘ugrožena sloboda medija’ i da ‘država ne reaguje adekvatno na napade na neke medije'”, naglasila je Brnabić. Prema njenom stavu “jako je važno da svi državni organi rade u skladu sa ovlašćenjima i zakonom, kao što je bila efikasna reakcija MUP u danu napada, kao i da ovakve reakcije budu javno priznate od svih”.

To će, sa jedne strane, doprineti razumevanju i dijalogu, a sa druge strane, odvratiti buduće napade, zaključila je Brnabić.

1...361362363...469 Page 362 of 469

Safejournalists.net