AJK reacts on the judge’s decision to deny media coverage in the trial against four MPs

20/12/2017

PRISTINA, 20.12.2017 – The Association of Journalists of Kosovo condemns the decision of the judge Beqir Kalludra that denied media to cover an on-going trial that involves four members of parliament from the Self-determination movement.

The removal of journalists from the trial session is an unacceptable act and presents a tendency to limit media to report about this trial.

AJK asks from Judge Kalludra to withdraw this decision because we consider that the case of MPs is of high interest to public opinion and the restriction of journalists’ access produces confusion and distrust of citizens in the justice system. Also, the Kosovo Judicial Council should raise its voice in this case by insisting on transparency by judges and courts.

AJK has also objected in the past against cases where judges have decided to remove journalists from trial, especially in the case of former president of the Court of Appeal, Sali Mekaj.

The four MPs are accused of throwing tear gas inside the Assembly chamber.

Murder of Shefki Popova: Where are the evidences from investigation?

IJAS

20/12/2017

BELGRADE, 21.12.2017. – On the 10 September 2000, on the doorstep in the hometown of Vucitrn, a famous Rilindja journalist Shefki Popova was murdered. The crime was prepared carefully. The Journalists Association of Serbia (UNS), while investigating this murder came to the information that the investigation made by UNMIK was distracted, and after the arrival of EULEX this case just “disappeared”. The family appealed, the Association asked questions, but even with clear indications of the motives of the murder, the investigation was stopped. The killers are still at large.

UNS Dossier find out that the UNMIK Police took from Shefki Popova apartment everything that could be considered as evidence, including his briefcase, that well-known journalist always had with him. And which, according to some opinions, could contain some important documents, a roadmap for the investigation.

The prosecutor of Basic Court in Mitrovica, Njazi Rexha, two times asked for urgent help from the Police (first time on the 5th October 2000, and second time on 23 March 2004) and in relation to this case (PPN 306/2000). Police didn’t respond on both requests.

With arrival of EULEX in 2008, the case of Popova “disappears” and EU Mission on this very matter answered to UNS (last time in September 2017) with “No information available”. With such an answer we are questioning what has happened with the documents taken from the house of Popova?

The murderer entered the building in which Popova was living, with the book where he hidden a gun. He waited for the journalist to return home (at 22:15). The witnesses saw two men fleeing, UNS learned.

Popova died a short time after he was taken to the closest hospital, at that time under the administration of the United Arab Emirates peacekeepers.

For the family, there is no doubt that Sefki Popova was killed because he was “the authority of the pen.”

Political murders

Popova was active in local politics. UNS sources are emphasizing the fact that he was killed just before local elections, when participant of these elections in Vucitrn was reputable candidate of Social Democratic Party of Kosovo led by Kaqusha Jashari. Candidates against were from AAK Party of Ramush Haradinaj and PDK Party of Hashim Thaqi.

At that time, in the struggle for power, many political murders happened, and most of the murdered people were those from Democratic League of Kosovo (LDK) of Ibrahim Rugova, with whom Popova was close.

LDK, on the local elections in October 2000 was the winner with 58 percent of votes, and 504 out of 869 Assembly seats in Local parliaments, leaving way behind Thaqi’s party with 27.3 percent of support.

Several members of LDK were attacked at that time. OSCE officially stated then that they are researching around such 20 incidents, but they never found out who the perpetrators are, explaining “it is very difficult to separate politically motivated attacks from those that are not”. However, three days after the murder of Popova, international police, KFOR and OSCE established the group for protection of the candidates on elections.

Ajeti called on the authorities

Murder of Popova took place after the attempt of murder of Serbian journalist Valentina Čukić, the editor of the programme in Serbian language program Radio Kontakt (June 2000) in Pristina. But only after the barbarian murder of Popova, additional protection for journalists was considered.

The murder of Sefki Popova was a shock. Those that knew him are saying that he was a good man who was not in any argument with anyone. As per UNS discovery, numerous texts and appeals were written to enlightened the murder of Shefki Popova, by the young journalist of “Bota Sot” Bardul Ajeti. Ajeti was killed in 2005.

Hope into the Special Court

The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ), the world’s largest journalist organization, protested for the brutal murder of Popova and called for all the warring factions in Kosovo to respect the freedom of the press and stop attacking journalists. IFJ also warned that the murder of Rilindja journalist could lead to further attacks. After this crime, two other journalists were killed.

In the OSCE poll, in December 2001, the 78 percent of Kosovo journalists report that they do not feel free to conduct an investigative journalism without fear of threat or retaliation.

For the family of Sefki Popova, as well as many others, the Special Court on War Crimes in Kosovo is the only hope to come to the truth.

The power of hidden forces

– The killings of two Kosovo journalists, Sefki Popova and Bekim Kastrati, as well as other cases of threats to journalists during the investigation of corruption, crime or drug trafficking, warn of the power hidden forces in Kosovo. “A free journalist in Kosovo is a dead journalist,” says a local reporter. But this is not just censorship by killing that threatens media freedom in Kosovo – even in a situation where two journalists were killed, but the fact that such things can happen. Intimidation of journalists facilitates the control of newspapers and broadcasters; the OSCE said in a report in June of 2002.

Violence after peace the rally

Twelve days after the killing of Sefki Popova, on 22nd September 2000, protests against political and interethnic violence were organized in Pristina and six other cities. But, within 48 hours, at least four murders were registered in Kosovo (two victims were known and prominent figures). After this series of murders, it has been established that violence in Kosovo cannot be stopped by public events, but by effective police force. Journalists still do not know who the killers and kidnappers are of the 14 of their colleagues, nor why the police and the prosecution did not do their job.

Unconscionable investigation of journalists’ abductions – A new punishment of victims

IJAS

20/12/2017

BELGRADE, 20.12.2017. – By investigating the kidnapping of Djuro Slavuj, a journalist of Radio Pristina who was kidnapped on August 21, 1998 with his colleague Ranko Perenić, the Journalists’ Association of Serbia found that in the International Commission on Missing Persons (ICMP) database that keeps DNA the material of missing family members, samples the relatives of Djuro Slavuj are under the wrong surname.

In the ICMP they say that “the family has been registered under the surname of Slavulj,” but the family denied that to the UNS Dossiers claiming they provided blood samples at three different locations, following a call, with the exact surname: first brother, then sister, and then the mother, who received the call in Croatia, and whose health was permanently damaged when she faced the fact DNA samples were determined by the identity of those killed.

* All families gave their DNA

During this research, and in conversations with many international officials in Kosovo, including EULEX Chief Alexandra Papadopoulou, we were told many times that the reason why the fate of our four abducted colleagues is unknown is because the families did not give their DNA samples. The UNS confirmed in its research that the families of all of the abducted colleagues (Slavuj, Perenić, as well as the families of Marjan Melonasi and Ljubomir Knežević) gave blood samples, which can be checked even with the International Commission on Missing Persons.

The Slavuj family, who was expelled from their native Dvor na Uni in the action “Storm – Oluja,” and their youngest son Djuro went to Pristina to save his life, for 19 years did not get any official information about how he disappeared.

Instead of an answer they experienced unpleasantness. And now, when the Perenić family received a notice from EULEX that the investigation was closed in 2013, there is still no information about the fate of Djuro Slavuj. If there was an investigation of this abduction, then there is a question for the EU mission in Kosovo why the prosecution or the police never contacted Perenić and Slavuj families.

The stresses, traumas and humiliations that they have suffered due to the failure to enforce the rule of law are evidence of violations of the fundamental articles of the European Convention on Human Rights. No one is responsible for that.

Humiliations in search for the truth

– On that day, Djuro was on the task to which he went to with Ranko, with a single voice recorder, a diary, and a pen. They were people without weapons and with no intention of committing any evil. They went to follow the information about the return of the monks to the monastery of Zociste, and they did not have any connection with the army or politics. It was a primarily human mission, ending in a man going to work and his disappearance. A step forward could be made even today, only a good will is needed. A step forward can be made by UNMIK, other international and other institutions in Kosovo, because it is easy to determine which unit was present on that the day in Orahovac – Velika Hoca, and who were their superiors, says in his testimony for the UNS Dossiers Pero Slavuj, brother of Djuro Slavuj.

After the news of the disappearance, the first organization to which the Slavuj family referred to in 1998 was the Commissariat for Refugees, which was headed by Bratislava Buba Morina at the time.

– I was not enthusiastic about the effort they invested, nor did I mind that, maybe it was no longer possible. I am annoyed with other organizations, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross and UNHCR. Once, when I came to them in Belgrade from Jagodina to see if they found out anything, I experienced unpleasantry. The official welcomed me with – “Oh, it is good that you came, do you have any new information?” It is just killing common sense, Pero Slavuj points out.

The refugees’ Golghota

About his brother’s life and his choice of journalism as a profession, Pero says that since his childhood, he was eager to learn.

– He wanted to go to school, although still too young for that. Since I was two years older, we agreed that I would leave at home a notebook or a book, so that he could come to school and bring it to me. So he could then stay to follow the lessons. He was an excellent student, and he had a preference for art. He studied history and geography in Zagreb, and began to work with journalism.

After unfortunate events of 1991, he returned to the village of Gvozdansko, and in this tense situation he was trying to be rational, to calm people when they are driven by war. In Dvor na Uni, a local “Radio Banija” was established, and Djuro has progressed rapidly there. With the arrival of the “Storm,” I went to Jagodina, my sister to Beska, and Djuro and his wife Sofia to Pristina. The politics of the then government was to get as many refugees as possible to Kosovo, says Pero Slavuj.

“Do not be afraid, everything is fine”

Very soon Djuro Slavuj got a job in Radio Pristina.

– Like all refugees, it was important for them to preserve their mere life. He did not think about the danger, he was not a nationalist. He lived in the hotel Bozur, full of refugees. At that time, I still did not exercise my rights as an invalid of war, so Djuro helped my family. He did not think about leaving Pristina. He quickly progressed to the job, and gained the trust of the collective, recalls Pero Slavuj.

In a conversation with the UNS Dossier, he underlines that two days before the kidnapping, he invited his brother to come to Jagodina.

– When we heard each other on the 19th, I urged them to come. He confidently answered, “Do not be afraid, everything is fine.” And then, on August 23, I accidentally switched my TV to 15:00 o’clock news, and the first thing I heard on RTS is that he is missing. I was crazy. They helped me in the local self-government in Jagodina, they let me use the phone for free. I called everyone who I thought could help. Djuro’s colleague, Andjelko Markovic and I went to Kosovo. We did not have contact with the Albanian side, but it is clear to everyone that the international factors had.

The mother died, and father would like to know, even if he could tell her in the afterlife what happened to Djuro. No dilemma that he is no longer among the living. But the truth could be found out, to find his remains and to give him a dignified burial. The responsibility lies with direct and indirect perpetrators, and those who are not trying to solve this and similar cases further inflict the pain.

Walker knew

– A drowning person will grab for the straw. In our search we even attempted to hire private detective agencies. And William Walker, then Head of the OSCE Observer Mission in Kosovo, was familiar with this case. Djuro did not harm anyone in Kosovo or anywhere were he lived with his 30 and something years, says Pero Slavuj.

A thank to the UNS

– I want to thank the Association of Journalists of Serbia, both here and in Kosovo, as you did not forget about Djuro, and because you put a memorial plate every year on the place where he disappeared. You are the only one that remembers. Unfortunately, I am no longer able to come to the anniversary of the abduction because I am in a poor state of health and cannot travel, says Pero Slavuj. The memorial plate, which the members of the Association re-renew and post, was broken for already five times.

Reporters Without Borders: 65 journalists are killed this year and 54 are held hostage

AJM

20/12/2017

SKOPJE, 12.20.2017 – The annual report of the organization “Reporters without Borders” shows that 65 journalists have been killed this year, 326 are in prison, and 54 of them are held as hostages.

In 2017 most often were attacked journalists reporting from war zones, as well as those who wrote about drug smuggling and other types of organized crime. Journalists are fleeing from countries such as Syria, Yemen, Libya, which have become too dangerous, but the RWB says the awareness of the need to protect journalists is even greater.

This is the smallest number of journalists killed over a year in the past 14 years, which, according to Reporters Without Borders, is due to better protection at work, and the fact that journalists avoid working in the most dangerous world hotspots.

The number of journalists who are in custody is also decreasing. China and Turkey remain the two countries with most arrested journalists.

Currently, 54 journalists are being held hostage by non-state groups such as the Islamic State.

Source: www.civilmedia.mk

AJM presented the publication “Freedom of expression through the practice of the European Court for Human Rights”

AJM

20/12/2017

SKOPJE, 20.12.2017 – The Association of Journalists of Macedonia, in cooperation with the European delegation and the French Embassy in Macedonia, yesterday presented the publication “Freedom of expression through the practice of the European Court for Human Rights” written by Dr. Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska. This publication analyzes judgments and cases of the European Court for Human Rights related to freedom of speech. It also analyzes the verdict on the case “Selmani and Others v. Republic of Macedonia”.

The author of the publication, Dr. Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, in the promotional speech stressed that freedom of expression is assumed and must be respected. “It is clearly prescribed where the State may limit the freedom of expression,” she said, adding that she hoped the publication will be beneficial both for journalistic and judicial profession.

On the promotion the European Ambassador to the Republic of Macedonia, Samuel Zbogar spoke aswell. According to him, freedom of expression means that opinions can be shared freely, but hate speech must be banned, and states must be protectors that guarantee this right. He emphasized that he expects readers of this publication in the future to be not only judges, but also all other stakeholders in the media sphere, such as journalists, politicians, civil society organizations, artists, etc.

The French Ambassador in Macedonia, Christian Thimonier, stressed the need and importance of such a publication “This book is important because it will remind you of the huge responsibility that you carry. It is a monument of the courage of some of the journalists, but also a monument to the lack of courage of some other actors,” he said.

The President of AJM Nasser Selmani thanked the European delegation and the French Embassy in Macedonia for their support for publishing this publication. Selmani said the goal of the publication is to improve the reporting of journalists, because only well-informed journalists about their rights and obligations do not violate the rights of others and they will not be self-censoring themselves, because of the fear that they will be prosecuted for the information released.

He said that the publication will help the institutions, which are obliged to provide a favorable ambience for journalists’ work. According to him, the publication should be a lesson for all that December 24th 2012 should never happen again.

You can find the publication on the following link.

Public official intimidated journalist’s family

AJK

19/12/2017

PRISTINA, 20.12.2017 – Association of Journalists of Kosovo strongly condemns the intimidation caused to the family of journalist Saranda Ramaj by a public official. Ramaj told AJK that Ejup Simnica, auditor at Office of General Auditor, went to her home in Peja and asked her parents to stop Ramaj writing stories about him. She reported the case to Kosovo police.

“Ejup Simnica, who is unknown person for my family, went to my home in Radavc, Peje/Pec and let a visit card to my parents saying I should stop reporting about him,” Ramaj said. She added to have reported the case to Kosovo police.

Ramaj stressed that the appearence of state official to her family has to do with her reportings about him and his wife, who due to her reportings was found guilty in the court.

She said that there are other reasons that the official visited her home. She did an investigation about a illegal tender at the office of State Prosecutor. The wrongdoings were presented in the report of Office of Audit General, drafted by Simnica himself. But such findings were removed in the final report.

“Newspaper published two reports, the draft report and the final report. We are now investigating why such findings are not published, as well as why the official’s wife, who is also a state official, is not beign arrested,” she added.

Such intimidation and threat is a direct interference in journalist’s work. AJK asks Kosovo police as well as justice bodies to investigate the case and judge the case according to Kosovo laws, as well as according to EUHR.

Tensions grow between authorities, journalists, media

IJAS

19/12/2017

GRUPA ZA SLOBODU MEDIJA ZATRAZILA PRESTANAK URUSAVANJA MEDIJA — Novi Sad, 19.11 2017. - Novinari i aktivisti nevladinih organizcaija delili su danas na Trgu slobode u Novom Sadu prolaznicima letke u kojima su navedeni zahtevi Grupe za slobodu medija koji su prosle sedmice uruceni premijerki Srbije Ani Brnabic. Uz vest Bete. (BETAPHOTO/DRAGAN GOJIC/DS)

BELGRADE, 19.12.2017. – Attempts by the Serbian authorities to show the associations of journalists and the non-governmental (NGO) sector that they are prepared to focus seriously on freedom of speech and of the press have reached a deadlock again. Most of the media associations that together with the authorities have been working on two important projects – a new media strategy and the protection of journalists and the media against physical assaults and threats – have started a boycott.

Most of the associations of journalists and media organizations, as well as the NGO sector, believe that the state doesn’t want to make any substantial moves, preferring to maintain formal cooperation in very broad terms. They suggest that the authorities have insisted on the propriety only to show to the international community, more precisely, Brussels and Washington, that when it comes to the freedom of the press and freedom of speech, things are getting better fast in Serbia, while actually keeping the status quo.

The associations and organizations most vocal in criticizing the government’s treatment of the media have been left out of hands-on projects to produce a new media strategy, which is a step back compared to the existing document, written six years ago. These organizations were actively involved in shaping the first media strategy, and even though some experts from the journalistic community openly criticized certain provisions, they were largely satisfied with the end result.

Six years ago, the associations and organizations appointed their own representatives to the team in charge of designing the media strategy. This time, however, the team has been appointed by the Ministry of Culture and Information, and the associations and organizations will be able to say what they think only when the job has been done. This was not an illegal move though, since the ministry is entitled to propose a new strategy, but the journalists and NGOs insist that the decision to leave them out portrays the state as one willing to impose solutions, instead of endorsing them through a broad debate and by consensus.

Boycott

A decision to boycott a working group for the protection of journalists, including representatives of journalists, the media, the Prosecutor’s Office and the Ministry of the Interior, came after a ruling by the prosecutor in charge to dismiss the criminal reports following attacks on journalists during the inauguration of Serbia President Aleksandar Vucic in Belgrade. Corroborating the reports are videos and eye witness testimonies by the journalists covering the event, attacked physically by the Serbian Progressive Party’s security guards.

What really hit a raw nerve with the media community was the prosecutor’s explanation that the journalists were not attacked at all, but that the Vucic’s party security had tried to protect them against the anger of party supporters. In separate releases, the associations and organizations described the prosecutor’s words as cynical, promising not to get back to the working group until all the circumstances surrounding the decision have been clarified in a meeting with Chief Prosecutor Zagorka Dolovac. The boycott wasn’t supported by the Association of Journalists of Serbia.

The Office of the Public Prosecutor then summoned the working group, without mentioning the presence of Zagorka Dolovac. Repeated questions as to her attendance were left unanswered, and most of the associations and organizations refused to come to the meeting. It turned out, however, that Zagorka Dolovac had been invited, and did come to the meeting. As it happens, the sole media representative at the meeting was the Association of Journalists of Serbia, which decided not to back up the boycott.

Zagorka Dolovac explained the procedure, promising that the Higher Prosecutor’s Office would discuss the appeals to the First Basic Court’s decision to dismiss the criminal reports. The associations, organizations and NGOs boycotting the working group welcomed the decision, but made clear that they knew they had been tricked by not being informed that Dolovac would attend the meeting. The misunderstanding has yet to be sorted out, and the Prosecutor’s Office that organized the meeting has offered no comment so far.

The associations and organizations find it very difficult to justify to international representatives the reasons behind the decision to continue the boycott, because, as they put it, it’s never easy to explain the role of behind-the-scenes intrigue in efforts to pacify the media landscape. Without a detailed, crystal explanation, those boycotting the working group are highly unlikely to stop the boycott. As things stand now, they will continue to share their own view of the Serbian media scene with the local and international public, with an emphasis on the state’s role in stifling media freedoms.

Requests

Attempts to open a direct dialogue with Prime Minister Ana Brnabic have been unproductive as well. At a Nov. 14 meeting with the prime minister, the informal Group for the Freedom of the Media, bringing together associations of journalists, media organizations and the NGO sector, handed to her a list of 13 specific requests to improve the media situation. In a press release, the Serbian cabinet described the talks as long and difficult, yet proceeding in a constructive atmosphere. There have been no answers to the requests so far, even though the Group was promised to receive those two weeks after the meeting. A new one with the prime minister hasn’t been mentioned either.

The associations, organizations and NGOs want a new working group to be set up for the media strategy, together with an in-depth analysis of all attacks against journalists, a decision for the state to withdraw its ownership stakes in three newspapers, Politika, Vecernje Novosti and Dnevnik, and the closure of the state-run Tanjug agency, which formally ceased to exist two years ago by a Serbian government decree. Another request is for the authorities, top government officials, in particular, to stop accusatory “roll-calls” and attempts to discredit journalists and media outlets.

The Group also insists that the authorities urgently resolve all the cases in which journalists were attacked, or their safety was threatened, and start proceedings against perpetrators immediately. The authorities are also expected to publish promptly the results of police and prosecutors’ actions in the cases of murders of and attacks against journalists. The Group wants the Ministry of Culture and Information to suspend right away its work on a new Strategy for the Development of Public Information, criticizing the methodology and structure of the working group, making it impossible for the largest media and journalistic associations to have a say in drafting the capital document.

The Group asked the Parliament to launch proceedings to dismiss members of the Regulatory Council for Electronic Media, and that in the election of new members, other proponents be free of influence by the executive and legislative branches of power. They also want the editorial, operational and financial independence of public media services, guaranteed by the law, to be made effective, and that the government, in order to protect their editorial independence, should allow the public media services to enjoy a tax as a dominant source of income, as provided by the law.

The government was also asked to set up an independent committee to analyze the system of cofinancing media contents in the public interest, and to suggest steps to prevent the abuse of media contests at all levels. The Ministry is also expected to define conditions and criteria for the decision-making process in the media co-financing contests precisely, and to introduce an effective mechanism to challenge a decision to allocate funds, before the funds have been used.

The Group also wants the government to make sure that decisions made by the Commissioner for Information of Public Importance and Personal Data Protection be effected, and act directly to handle all the requests for access to information that hasn’t been addressed. In the future, the authorities are expected to deal with such requests within a legal deadline, and in the way provided by the Law on Free Access to Information of Public Importance.

Oštro razmimoilažnje vlasti i medijskih udruženja u Srbiji

IJAS

19/12/2017

BEOGRAD, 10.12.2017. – U Ustavu Kraljevine Srbije iz 1903. ovako je bio definisan položaj štampe: “Štampa je slobodna. Ne može se ustanoviti ni cenzura ni kakva druga preventivna mera koja sprečava izlazak, prodaju ili rasturanje spisa i novina… Štampa ne može nikad biti podvrgnuta administrativnim opomenama…”

Danas vodeća novinarska udruženja i asocijacije, kao i nevladin sektor, ulaze u otvoren sukob sa vlastima upravo zbog osnovnih ideala proklamovanih u Ustavu pre više do sto godina – slobode medija i slobode javne reči. Oni optužuju vlasti da koriste sva moguća sredstva kako bi diskreditovale ili dovele do finansijske propasti medije koji se profesionalno bave izveštavanjem i komentarisanjem događaja.

Poslednji primer takvog odnosa vlasti dala je premijerka Ana Brnabić, reagujući na istraživanje imovine političara kojim se bave portali.

“Mi u ovom trenutku imamo razne takozvane istraživačke medije koji kako god hoće, bez ikakve odgovornosti i bez toga da njih neko pozove na odgovornost, kopaju po imovini funkcionera, što je u potpunosti ‘okej’ i pošto to nije u skladu sa zakonima, oni sami u skladu sa svojim željama određuju šta je bliža, a šta dalja porodica”, kazala je premijerka.

Portali odgovaraju da Zakon o agenciji za borbu protiv korupcije, član dva, koji se odnosi na povezana lica sa javnim funkcionerima, koji oni poštuju, kaže: “Povezano lice je supružnik ili vanbračni partner funkcionera, krvni srodnik funkcionera u pravoj liniji, odnosno u pobočnoj liniji zaključno sa drugim stepenom srodstva, usvojitelj ili usvojenik funkcionera, kao i svako drugo pravno ili fizičko lice koje se prema drugim osnovama i okolnostima može opravdano smatrati interesno povezanim sa funkcionerom”.

Razlaz zbog medijske strategije

Premijerka je i pre ove izjave došla u sukob sa neformalnom Grupom za slobodu medija koju čine medijska udruženja i asocijacije i nevladin sektor. Ona je pre više od mesec dana imala sastanak sa predstavnicima te grupe na kome se javno obavezala da će za 15 dana odgovoriti na 13 zahteva vezanih za poboljšanje medijske situacije u Srbiji. Nakon što je kritikovana zog kašnjenja, izvinila se i u kratkom odgovoru na tviteru napisala da uskoro šalje odgovore na zahteve koje je dobila 14. novembra. Odgovori još nisu stigli.

Ovi i mnogi drugi primeri odnosa vlasti prema medijima postakli su otkazivanje učešća većine novinarskih udruženja i medijskih asocijacija u razgovorima o kreiranju nove medijske strategije. Oni su nezadovoljni jer su praktično isključeni iz neposrednog rada na konkretnim rešenjima za novu medijsku strategiju. Pre šest godina, kada je doneta važeća strategija, stvari su izgledale sasvim dručačije a udruženja i asocijacije bili su ravnopravni partneri u osmišljavanju i pisanju završne verzije medijske strategije.

Ovoga puta strategiju radi tim koji je odredilo Ministarstvo, a udruženja i asocijacije će o njihovom rezultatu moći da se izjasne tek kada posao bude završen. Takav pristup nije nezakonit, budući da je Ministarstvo nadležno da predloži strategiju, ali novinari i nevladin sektor smatraju da se njihovim isključivanjem iz celog procesa država legitimiše kao neko ko želi da nametne rešenja, a ne da ih donese kroz široku raspravu i proces usaglašavanja. Nadležni ministar tvrdi da će strategija biti gotova do kraja 2017, a o njoj javna rasprava nije ni počela.

Udruženja i asocijacie zbog toga su uvereni da država ne želi da napravi suštinske pomake i da joj je cilj da održi što veći nivo formalne saradnje. Oni traže konkretne rezultate, smatrajući da vlasti, baveći se formom, zapravo žele da Briselu i Vašingtonu, pokažu da se, kada je reč o medijskim slobodama i slobodi javne reči, stvari u Srbiji ubrzano popravljaju, a da istovremeno ništa suštinski ne promene.

Bojkot Radne grupe za zaštitu novinara

Odluka o bojkotu Radne grupe za zaštitu novinara sastavljene od predstavnika novinarskih i medijskih udruženja, sa jedne, i Tužilaštva i Ministarstva unutrašnjih poslova, sa druge strane, usledila je nakon što je nadležni tužilac odbacio krivične prijave povodom napada na novinare u vreme ovogodišnje inauguracije predsednika Aleksandra Vučiča u Beogradu. O tim napadima postoje video snimci i izjave novinara koji su izveštavli sa događaja, a fizički ih je napalo obezeđenje Vučićeve Srpske napredne stranke (SNS).

Kao posebno ciničan stav novinari i mediji su ocenili obrazloženje tužioca da njihove kolege nisu napadnute nego je obezbeđenje pokušalo da ih zaštiti od gneva pristalica SNS-a, što su i naveli u odvojenim saopštenjima, dodajući da neće učestvovati u radu Radne grupe dok se ne razjasne sve okolnosti ovakve odluke. Zahtevan je sastanak sa glavnom tužiteljkom Zagorkom Dolovac, a ideju o bojkotu nije podržalo Udruženje novinara Srbije (UNS).

Kada je Javno tužilaštvo sazvalo sastanak Radne grupe, prisustvo Dolovac nije potvrđeno ni nakon ponovljenih upita. Na kraju se ispostavilo da je ona na sastanak ipak došla, ali predstavnici većine medijskih organizacija i nevladinog sektora – izuzimajući člana UNS-a – nisu, pretpostavljajući da je neće biti na sastanku.

Dolovac je tom prilikom obrazložila postupak i najavila da će Više tužilaštvo razmotriti prigovor oštećenih na odluku Prvog osnovnog tužilaštva u Beogradu koje je odbacilo njihove krivične prijave. Udruženja, asocijacije i nevladine organizacije koje bojkotoju Radnu grupu su bili zadovoljni najavom, ali su takođe rekli da su smišljeno izigrani u vezi sa sastankom.

Razloge bojkota Radne grupe je teško objasniti međunarodnim predstavnicima, kako navode medijske organizacije, udruženja i nevladin sektor, pre svega zato što je reč o zakulisnim igrama i pokušaju da se “pacifikuje” medijska scena. Malo je verovatno da će, bez detaljnijih i jasnijih objašnjenja, bojkot biti prekinut. Ono što im preostaje je da nastave da domaćoj i svetskoj javnosti ukazuju na svoje viđenje stanja na srpskoj medijskoj sceni i uloge države u gušenju slobode medija i slobode javne reči.

Ovaj tekst je napisan u okviru partnerstva sa Osservatorio Balcani e Caucaso za potrebe Evropskog centra za slobodu štampe i medija (ECPMF), a koji sufinansira Evropska komisija. Sadržaj ovog članka je isključivo odgovornost Bete i ni na koji način se ne može interpretirati kao stav Evropske unije.

Ties and connections between the politicians and media owners: legal boundaries and progress recommendations

BHJA

19/12/2017

SARAJEVO, 19.12.2017.-The question of transparency ownership over media houses is always somehow tied to freedom of speech and media pluralism. Today, this question represents a priority in BiH and its path to European integration process. Digital era requires information and availability, so citizens, as end users of services and contents, would be entitled to know who shall be held responsible for information providing.

There is no special Registry in BiH through which the public could be provided with information regarding the ownership structure in media houses and how they shall operate, particularly in terms of financing by third parties. Public Services through the institutions of managing boards are governed and managed by the people who consider ethnic or political background (or even personal interest) more important than common and general public interests. Normative regulation of transparency of media ownership would allow public to become more familiar in terms of media and political issues, in order to be able to identify and outline hidden ties and connections between media and particular political centers, also including the manner of its expression and consequences of broadcasted program contents, provided information, selection of editing and journalism personnel/staff, TV and radio show timing announcements etc.

In his book “Media and Democracy”’, John Kean claims that we shall enter the era of political censorship, a period of democratic Leviathan, where key segments of a life are lead and guided by irresponsible political institutions. Political repression shall thus take two ways: limitations and censorship upon the publishing/posting. limitations include formal and informal procedures (chatting with government press officials, various inquiries, requests or warnings issued, discrete decrees or warrants etc). On the other hand, censorship procedure after the publishing / posting, comprise of court proceedings and charges pressed against journalists, closing down of media houses etc. If we additionally add the postmodern methods of PR democracy to this, including the “art of political lies” and a decreasing number of critically biased journalists, the need for free communication without censorship thus consequently gains more significance.

Media houses in Bosnia and Herzegovina experience less media freedoms and liberties, that is, they do not correspond with the right of a single voice. Namely, according to the last report issued by Freedom House, all regional countries, apart from Macedonia, have been considered and marked as partially free as far as media freedoms and liberties are concerned. In 2015, Macedonia experienced a significant decline in terms of media freedoms and liberties and was consequently considered as unsafe country. Bosnia and Herzegovina was along with Macedonia on the bottom of this list. There are no information regarding the number of online media houses in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Macedonia. The competition on media market should serve as warrant to control and supervision of democratic institutions, however, corporative media system is rather providing business empires with what they need. Let us remind ourselves that Churchill was once disallowed from holding a speech at the beginning of World War II on British radio that was, at the time, monopoly-based supervised by the state and controlled by the British Radio Corporation as well (Friedman, 1992: 30).

His attempts to counteract and parry Hitler’s threats had been considered as too conservative. There are too many reasons why there should be more restrictions as far as the regulation of media ownership is concerned. Regardless of whether owners/entrepreneurs motifs were politically or economically based, the media owner/entrepreneur would still dictate and guide these contents. This is crucial for the survival of journalism as professional occupation. Today, we live under inconvenient and inappropriate conditions required for the existence of professional journalism.

Moreover, these conditions are indeed worrying. Recently, the Survey on Media Freedoms and Liberties for 2017 was conducted and its results showed that over 12% of citizens of BiH in fact justified this and even encouraged violence imposed against journalists. General public trust that media houses relished, has significantly decreased because the public was convinced that journalists had been influenced by local politicians. There have been a significant number of obvious obstacles crucial for the development of BH media, including journalists’ freedoms and liberties, taking into consideration the amount of foreign money invested in BiH as part of media reform process.

During another survey the Indicators of media freedom and liberty stages and journalists safety (2016),the surveyors concluded that there had been over 300 charges pressed against journalists (on an annual level) and these were mostly based on defamation charges. For the period of 3 (three) years only (from 2013 to 2016) there were 67 threats and 16 physical assaults / attacks against journalists. Legally, these assaults / attacks were no different to assaults / attacks against any other civilians. Therefore, censorship, physical violence and journalists threats, putting journalists names on “blacklists” were easy to identify and recognize and it was important to introduce and impose guidelines and recommendations in order to eliminate the prior. However, there were unobvious (hidden) regarding the development of media freedoms and liberties.

These included: social limitations such as diversity and division in a society based on ethnic background, pressures based on economic issues (lack of syndicate / union on state level and in private media houses, lack of infrastructure, lack of skills, knowledge etc). It was actually about refined and rather complex mechanisms that would deny journalism with its essence to be free and to be liberated from all outer factors, and to be dependent on professional and ethical principles of journalism. Auto-censorship took place in this field of nondescriptive obstacles which derived out of fear but also including apparent vampirism in media vs. politics relationship. Namely, certain media houses have been financed by state institutions, cantons, municipality funds, but there was not enough information about what contents have been particularly financed. These would certainly not include programs broadcasted in languages of ethnic communities, but instead they would include programs that would glorify and publicize local powerful entities.

Due to several emerging crisis, not only in BiH, but also throughout the world, media responsibility had been increasing, particularity in terms of creating media future period. Media market has been flooded with so-called “servile journalism and journalism managed by the market demands”, where individual interests of owners and entrepreneurs, including advertisers would represent a priority comparing to general public interests. Investigative journalism and investigative and survey-based articles seem very rare at present. Media owners and entrepreneurs would consequently treat journalists as noncrucial items in their expenses and costs business evaluation, and therefore modern technology in media business would often be followed by sacking many journalists, reducing wages/salaries, disrespecting and ignoring collective labor contract rights etc.

In today’s conditions, media and journalism independence has been clearly in hands of media owners and entrepreneurs and accordingly the same case may apply to free expression of every single individual person. Along with the ability to think, the ability to express our thoughts and pass them to others is one of the most beautiful characteristic that separates men from animals. Media freedom cannot be treated separately from freedom of speech and expression and this why society must be more determined in preventing Nazi despots in their will to chase and prosecute those with different and diverse opinion and attitude to prosecute freedom and liberty on behalf of heavenly people or certain ruling and governing political party.

Freedom does not belong to anyone and must not be considered as personal property, especially must not be considered and treated as personal property of any political party. Therefore media and journalists have been assigned with rather difficult but strategic assignment and task which they should strike the process of depolarization aimed to develop democratic and pluralistic society, including the strengthening and reinforcing the development of journalism as an autonomous profession. Without untrammeled and chainless media freedom and liberty, without free conflict of opinions, the life in a public institution would eventually vanish. If we allow few political party leaders, charged with energy and limitless necessity to conduct and govern, we then conclude wand end up with society where ties and link between media and political groups is not an issue, as a result. Their relationship often resembles some kind of official system of social relationships where things like media and politics are generally approved through certain symbiotic relationship.

Let’s wake up. Robespierre, a controversial historic person stated long ago: “Media do not need benevolent guarding of government. Press represents rather strange fruit. It brings golden fruits only when it is wild that is if it is considered completely liberated: when the state gardener begins engrafting it with the police and judge scissors, it becomes rudimentary plant and produces bitter and even poisonous fruit” (Robespierre, 1909)

This text is a part of E-Bulletin– second 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.

1...378379380...469 Page 379 of 469

Safejournalists.net