Sarajevo, 11.10.2017.-State interrupting syntagm in media field does not necessarily include negative connotations. Certain state role, in comparison with media field, is in fact accepted, desirable and even considered required, in terms of preventing negative and rather outlined modern phenomena, such as uncontrolled media ownership over media houses, uncontrolled foreign and global finance investments, unbalanced license granting for operations and inadequate mechanisms used to sanction socially irresponsible media houses.

For each of the above-mentioned occurrences/appearances, the state disposes of mechanisms through which their negative effects (such as violating media liberties and freedoms, unequal and insufficient competition and unsustainable socially responsible media houses) may repulse or to some extent, ease many of the above-listed occurrences. In this context, the role of the state, acting as a regulator or legislator, is indeed crucial. The necessity of this state role derives from several factors.

Namely, the structure of modern media systems has become more complex in terms of production sub-system, that is, media complex mostly consisting of numerous and diverse media houses, towards both communication techniques upon which they have been based (printed media, radio, television, online media) and ownership over media (public, private, civil media) and also towards the manner of managing and their financing.

Furthermore, the structure of modern media systems have been additionally made complicated by ever-growing social subjects that, either directly or indirectly and (more or less) had impact on media financing issues and this certainly made these subjects identified as media system ageneses (governing officials, political parties, entrepreneurs, advertisers, religious communities, non – governmental organizations etc). Interests of these ageneses may significantly jeopardize the autonomy of professional communicators (media managers, editors, and journalists) and they consequently require particular legal aid as well.

Also, the justification of the state role acting as a regulator in modern media systems derives from a complete exposure to media markets in commercial processes, including privatization and media capital concentration, which is often, through overtaking or joining or even mutual investing, somehow linked to the capital from other industrial fields. However, passing quality set of laws and applicable legal regulations (in practical journalism), including the creation of efficient mechanisms to imposing sanctions, should these regulations be violated, is required at the state level in order to have a completely justified role of the state acting as the regulator for this specific issue. Also, these legal regulations should be harmonized and conformed to international documents, including universal principles containing (more or less) the media sphere.

Media hyperproduction, including media contents, as one of the most dominating marks of modern media systems, requires greater control level over media houses, although this kind of control does not necessarily include the violation of media autonomy, particularly if controlling is aimed towards valuable dimension of media houses, in terms of their community adequacy and advisability, responsibility and expediency. Hyperproduction of media contents and total number of media houses are not necessarily sufficient in order to obtain and accomplish media freedoms and liberties, neither have they represented relevant level of democracy of individual media systems, On the contrary, these occurrences often result in violation of media autonomy and professional communicators; because they are often forced to accept compromises with the above-mentioned ageneses in order to sustain in significantly degraded media market.

This trend also often results in advocating and promoting powerful individuals or organizations biased against general public interest. Also, one of the undesirable and negative trends, caused by the massive existence of media houses, is the quality decline of media contents, in terms of unjustified outlined short, easy, funny, entertaining and useless and, in a sense of genuine values, unacceptable media products. Applicable normative framework, based on quality content, composed of norms at various responsibility levels (including legal and ethical norms) and norms passed on different levels (including international level norms, national or norms passed at individual organization levels) represents one of the most important precondition in preventing political parallelism in media systems, including commercial media instrumentalisation.

Both of these appearances could be treated as a phenomenon in modern media systems, considering that their ever-increasing existence, including the factors that significantly violate media freedoms and liberties and professional communicators. Their importance is perhaps best outlined through the fact that analyzing modern media systems, with the purpose of identifying their nature and character, requires the determination of political parallelism level and measures in which media houses are commercially instrumentalized as part of this process. In one of the most significant comparative studies of media systems whose authors are Daniel C. Hallin and Paolo Mancini, political parallelism was defined as the level and nature-bound between media and political parties and in a wider context, as measured in which media system sustain political segregation of a community (2004: 21).

As most significant indicators of the political parallelism level represented in various media systems, these two authors outlined the following: – Media contents, that is, to what extent do different media houses sustain with various political orientations through contents they broadcast; – Organizational ties between media and political parties or other types of organizations that are often bound with political parties, such as media financing by political organizations; – Tendencies of professional communicators engaged with media organizations in order to be active in political life at the same time; – Engaging media staff whose political views are not confronting with political orientation of their employers, that is, media organization; – Biased media audience, which shall include the tendency of having the followers of different political parties use media that suit their political orientation; – Journalist role orientation and practice from upholding journalism to journalism mainly aimed to information providing; – Regulatory bodies isolation level from any political influence; – Model of organizing and managing the public service (Hallin/Mancini, 2004: 28- 32).

Some of the above-mentioned forms of political media instrumentalization may be regulated legally1 and thus make the contribution to their sanctions and acquiring inner pluralism as part of any individual media house or organization. Namely, Hallin and Mancini used internal pluralism for the purpose of marking media houses attempting to avoid institutional ties and bounds with political groups thus prevailing their neutrality and remaining “balanced” in content they disseminate. On the other hand, a less desirable form is outer pluralism (in context of repression against political parallelism) defined by the authors as “pluralism accomplished at media system in full through the existence of several media houses or organizations reflecting views by different groups or tendencies in a community” (As above: 29). For systems defining this type of pluralism, one could say that they contain a high level of political parallelism as well. Apart from political parties, with de-regulation processes, commercializing and media privatizing, entrepreneurs, and capital owners appear as dominating ageneses in media systems and they are often connected with political elites, including advertisers.

One of the results of these processes includes the forming of many private media houses which, according to financing and functioning manners, conform to profit and commercial model, which, at the same time, includes the conditioning of their economic sustainability to incomes provided by the advertisers. The pressure they impose upon editing policies of media houses may be outlined through media markets characterizing disproportional relationship between number of media houses and the scale of media market, non – transparent and unequal forms of subventions of media houses provided by the state officials, but also inadequate legal media protection and aid, including professional communicators from outer pressures2 .

Discovering and establishing the balance between satisfying the public interest and preserving the reputation on one hand, and, accomplishing economic media sustainability, on the other hand, represents at present, one of the most significant requests set up before managers running media organizations. Depending on a level of political parallelism representation and commercial media instrumentalization, harmoniously joint with other indicators of nature and characters of the media system, results in the configuration of different media system models. Although, typologies of media system models are numerous and diverse, it is obvious that media systems with highlighted trends of media political influence or their determination mainly in profit making, do not belong to models with the domination of free and socially responsible media houses.

One of the inevitable assumptions for establishing and sustainability of free and socially responsible media houses, that is, media houses biased towards public interest in the first place, as oppose to interests of individuals or particular organizations, is passing and revising systematic legal sets of laws, primarily related to regulation of media system, commencing with the regulation of assumptions upon which it is in fact created and established and upon which it is based, to regulate the outcome of their existence that is, to public communication advocated by media houses. A systematic set of laws regulate “public communication as a social relationship, followed by technical presumptions of system functioning, conditions for media functioning, an international relationship in public communicating, professional communicators interacting and other social subjects, a degree of eventual public communication commercializing etc” (Miletic 2014: 12). Their content and the level of their effective implementation represent significant parameters for defining the nature and character of a particular media system.

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

SARAJEVO, 11.10.2017.-Sintagma državni intervencionizam u sferi medija ne podrazumijeva nužno negativno značenje. Pojedine uloge države u odnosu na medije su poželjne, pa čak i neophodne u smislu sprečavanja negativnih i veoma izraženih savremenih fenomena, poput nekontrolisane koncentracije vlasništva nad medijima, nekontrolisanog upliva inostranog i globalnog medijskog kapitala, neravnopravnog dodjeljivanja dozvola za rad medija i nedovoljno razvijenih mehanizama za sankcionisanje društveno neodgovornih medija.

Za svaku od navedenih pojava država ima na raspolaganju mehanizme posredstvom kojih njihove negativne posljedice poput narušavanja slobode medija, neravnopravne i nedovoljno efikasne konkurencije i neodrživosti društveno odgovornih medija, može suzbiti ili ih u izvjesnoj mjeri ublažiti. U tom kontekstu naročito značajna je uloga države kao regulatora ili zakonodavca. Nužnost ove uloge države proističe iz nekoliko razloga.

Naime, struktura savremenih medijskih sistema je sve kompleksnija u smislu produkcionog podsistema, odnosno, medijskog kompleksa koji najčešće čine brojni i raznovrsni mediji, kako prema tehnikama komuniciranja na kojima se zanivaju (štampa, radio, televizija, onlajn mediji), tako i prema vrsti vlasništva nad medijima (javni, privatni, civilni mediji) i prema načinu upravljanja i njihovog finasiranja.

Zatim, strukturu savremenih medijskih sistema dodatno usložnjavaju sve prisutniji društveni subjekti koji na neposredan ili posredan način u većoj ili manjoj mjeri utiču na način funkcionisanja medija, na osnovu čega je sasvim opravdano kvalifikovanje ovih subjekata kao agensa medijskih sistema (organi vlasti, političke partije, vlasnici kapitala, oglašivači, vjerske zajednice, nevladine organizacije i dr). Interesi navedenih agensa mogu značajno ugroziti autonomiju profesionalnih komunikatora (menadžera medija, urednika i novinara), zbog čega im je neophodno obezbijediti određenu pravnu zaštitu.

Takođe, opravdanost uloge države kao regulatora u savremenim medijskim sistemima proističe iz potpune izloženosti medijskih tržišta procesima komercijalizacije, privatizacije i koncentracije medijskog kapitala, koji je nerijetko posredstvom preuzimanja, pripajanja ili zajedničkih ulaganja, povezan sa kapitalom iz druge industrije. Međutim, za potpuno opravdanu ulogu države kao regulatora neophodno je na državnom nivou donošenje sadržajno kvalitetnih i u novinarskoj praksi korisnih i primjenjivih pravnih propisa, kao i osmišljavanje efektivnih mehanizama sankcionisanja u slučaju njihovog kršenja.

Takođe, neophodno je njihovo usklađivanje sa međunarodnim dokumentima u kojima su sadržani univerzalni principi kojima je u većoj ili manjoj mjeri obuhvaćena i sfera medija. Hiperprodukcija medija i medijskih sadržaja, kao jedno od dominantnih obilježja savremenih medijskih sistema iziskuje i veću kontrolu nad njima koja nužno ne podrazumijeva narušavanje njihove autonomije, naročito ako je kontrola usmjerena na vrijednosnu dimenziju medija u smislu njihove društvene opravdanosti, odgovornosti i svrsishodnosti. Hiperponuda medijskih sadržaja i brojnost medija sami po sebi nisu dovoljni za dostizanje medijskih sloboda, niti su relevanti pokazatelji nivoa demokratičnosti pojedinačnih medijskih sistema. Naprotiv, ove pojave nerijetko doprinose narušavanju autonomije medija i profesionalnih komunikatora, jer su oni često primorani na uspostavljanje kompromisa sa prethodno pomenutim agensima, a u svrhu opstanka na izaraženo usitnjenom medijskom tržištu.

Ovakav trend često rezultira zastupanjem i promovisanjem interesa moćnih pojedinaca ili organizacija na uštrb javnog interesa. Takođe, jedan od negativnih trendova uzrokovan mnoštvom medija je opadanje kvaliteta medijskih sadržaja, u smislu neopravdano izražene zastupljenosti kratkih, lakih, zabavnih, neupotrebljivih i u vrijednosnom smislu neprihvatljivih medijskih proizvoda. Sadržajno kvalitetan i primjenjiv normativni okvir, sačinjen od normi različitog stepena obaveznosti (pravne i etičke norme) i normi donosenih na različitim nivoima (norme donesene na međunarodnom nivou, nacionalnom nivou ili norme donesene na nivou pojedinačnih organizacija), jedan je od najvažnijih preduslova za suzbijanje političkog paralelizma u medijskim sistemima i komercijalne instrumentalizacije medija.

Obje pojave moguće je tretirati kao fenomene u savremenim medijskim sistemima s obzirom na njihovu sveprisutnost i kao činioce koji značajno ugrožavaju slobodu medija i profesionalnih komunikatora. Na njihov značaj ukazuje i činjenica da je u izučavanju savremenih medijskih sistema, a u svrhu prepoznavanja njihove prirode i karaktera, neizostavno utvrđivanje stepena političkog paralelizma i mjere u kojoj su mediji u njima komercijalno instrumentalizovani. U jednoj od najznačajnijih komparativnih studija medijskih sistema čiji su autori Daniel Halin (Daniel C. Hallin) i Paolo Manćini (Paolo Mancini), politički paralelizam je definisan kao stepen i priroda veze između medija i političkih partija, a u širem kontekstu, kao mjera u kojoj medijski sistem odražava političke podjele društva (2004: 21).

Kao najvažnije pokazatelje nivoa zastupljenosti političkog paralelizma u različitim medijskim sistemima ovi autori su izdvojili: – sadržaj medija, tj. u kojoj mjeri različiti mediji odražavaju različite političke orijentacije kroz sadržaje koje emituju; – organizacione veze između medija i političkih partija ili drugih vrsta organizacija koje su često povezane sa političkim partijama, poput finansiranja medija od strane političkih organizacija; – tendenciju profesionalnih komunikatora zaposlenih u medijskim organizacijama da budu istovremeno aktivni u političkom životu – zapošljavnje medijskog osoblja čija politička opredjeljenja odgovaraju političkoj orijentaciji medijske organizacije; – pristrasnost medijske publike, podrazumijevajući pod tim tendenciju da pristalice različitih političkih partija koriste medije koji odgovaraju njihovoj političkoj orijentaciji; – orijentaciju novinarske uloge i prakse od zagovaračkog novinarstva do novinarstva orijentisanog isključivo ka informaciji; – nivo izolovanosti regulatornih tijela od političkih uticaja; – model organizovanja i načina upravljanja javnim servisom (Hallin/ Mancini, 2004: 28-32).

Neke od navedenih pojavnih oblika političke instrumentalizacije medija moguće je zakonski regulisati1 i na taj način doprinijeti njihovom sankcionisanju i postizanju unutrašnjeg pluralizma u okviru svake pojedinačne medijske kuće ili organizacije. Naime, Halin i Manćini interni pluralizam koriste u svrhu označavanja onih medija koji nastoje da izbjegnu institucionalne veze sa političkim grupama i na taj način održavaju neutralnost i „ravnotežu“ u sadržaju koji diseminuju.

S druge strane, manje poželjan u kontekstu suzbijanja političkog paralelizma je spoljašnji pluralizam koji navedeni autori definišu kao „pluralizam postignut na nivou medijskog sistema u cjelini, kroz postojanje niza medija ili organizacija koje odražavaju gledišta različitih grupa ili tendencija u društvu“ (Isto: 29). Za sisteme koje odlikuje ova vrsta pluralizma može se smatrati da je u njima zastupljen i visok stepen političkog paralelizma. Pored političkih partija, sa procesima deregulacije, komercijalizacije i privatizacije medija, kao dominantni agensi u medijskim sistemima pojavljuju se i vlasnici kapitala, koji su nerijetko povezani sa političkim elitama, i oglašivači. Jedan od rezultata navedenih procesa je osnivanje mnoštva privatnih medija koji prema načinu finansiranja i funkcionisanja odgovaraju profitno-komercijalnom modelu, što istovremeno podrazumijeva uslovljenost njihove ekonomske održivosti prihodima od strane oglašivača.

Njihovi pritisci na uređivačku politiku medija mogu biti veoma izraženi na medijskim tržištima koja karakterišu neproporcionalan odnos broja medija i veličine medijskog tržišta, netransparetni i neravnopravni vidovi subvencionisanja medija od strane države, ali i neadekvatna pravna zaštita medija i profesionalnih komunikatora od spoljašnjih pritisaka.2 Pronalaženje i uspostavljanje balansa između zadovoljavanja javnog interesa i očuvanja ugleda, s jedne strane, i postizanja ekonomske održivosti medija, s druge strane, danas je jedan od najznačajnijih zahtjeva koji se postavlja pred menadžere medijskih organizacija. U zavisnosti od nivoa zastupljenosti političkog paralelizma i komercijalne instrumentalizacije medija u simbiozi sa drugim indikatorima prirode i karaktera medijskih sistema konfigurisali su se različiti modeli medijskih sistema.

Iako su tipologije modela medijskih sistema brojne i raznovrsne, izvjesno je da medijski sistemi sa izraženim trendom politizacije medija ili njihove orijentacije isključivo ka sticanju profita, ne pripadaju modelu u kojem dominiraju slobodni i društveno odgovorni mediji. Jedna od neizostavnih pretpostavki za osnivanje i opstanak slobodnih i društveno odgovornih medija, tj. medija orijentisanih ka javnom intersu, a ne ka interesima pojedinaca ili pojedinih organizacija, je donošenje i revidiranje sistemskih zakona koji se odnose isključivo na regulisanje medijskog sistema, polazeći od regulacije pretpostavki na kojima on nastaje i na kojima se zasniva, do regulacije ishoda njegovog postojanja, tj. javnog komuniciranja posredovanog medijima.

Sistemskim zakonima se reguliše „javno komuniciranje kao društveni odnos, zatim tehničke pretpostavke funkcionisanja sistema, uslovi za rad medija, međunarodni odnosi u javnom komuniciranju, interakcija profesionalnih komunikatora i ostalih društvenih subjekata, stepen moguće komercijalizacije javnog komuniciranja, itd“ (Miletić, 2014: 12). Njihov sadržaj i stepen njihove efektivne primjene značajni su parametri za definisanje prirode i karaktera određenog medijskog sistema.

Ovaj tekst je originalno objavljen u prvom izdanju specijalnog biltena Udruženja BH Novinari, koji se realizira u okviru projekta “Mediji i javni ugled”, kao doprinos javnoj raspravi o temi transparentnosti medijskog vlasništva i zagovaranju donošenja zakona za unapređenje medijskog prostora i tržišta informacija u BiH. Bilten možete preuzeti ovdje

Sarajevo, 09.10.2017.- Bosnia and Herzegovina is in the first place, entity, ethnically and then politically deeply divided the country. This also applies to media field in BiH. As a result of such social background, political clientelism has become dominant in the media field in BiH. It is somehow based on some kind of auto-censorship by the owners/entre- preneurs, editors, and journalists.

Auto censorship significantly derives from individual views and opinions claiming that the general public attitude of one’s people is correct, which is often untrue. Such opinion in journalism could be reflected (through unprofessional work) through media production processes, including information selection, highlighting certain issues confirming the opinions of these groups, negative and denying comments towards those that are, according to the conviction of dominant ethnic policy, being considered as opponents. These methods have been easy to identify and, (as opposed to another manipulative dismembering defined as defamation, particularly incorrect information) they can hardly be processed pursuant to regulations or media self- regulation. This is exactly why many media houses in BiH claim to be objective because of they, for instance, allow every- one to have their own opinion. Of course, they do, but allow everyone to have their opinion in what way and what kind of context? Another reason for political clientelism occurrence is interest based on pure materialism.

If one conforms to majority public opinion, that is, influential political and economic factors, the media itself or their owners (or if there is public media house, their manager, and indirectly the editors as well) may find this beneficiary. This has been noted for the period of last few years concerning three services as part of the Public RTV Broadcasting System in BiH. According to monitoring implemented by Media Plan Institute, RTRS as a public broadcaster of the Republic of Srpska, produced the program which has been openly biased and aimed to the benefit of ruling governing political coalition, or to be more precise, biased towards the strongest political party. That is, to some extent, common sense, because the ruling elite consider RTRS as a state-building element and they should operate accordingly. Ruling and opposition political parties in the Federation of BiH have never treated public services as their own heir; instead, public services have been considered as the danger jeopardizing their positions as a result of reports based on critical views. Negative audit reports followed consequently, rejection of project technical assistance targeted for new facilities and centers, hidden pressures imposed against members of executive and board of directors (especially those, whose appointing had been politically based). During these games, neither directors nor chief editors could complete their mandates at the end as innocent and objective people. When certain political party expresses its dissatisfaction with public service reporting, it becomes ready to destroy it completely and this later becomes absolute destructive operation with no political common sense and logic present. If something fails, no governing official can restore it and the price is usually paid by the two public services with head offices in Sarajevo. Due to political discrepancies between ethnically segregated political parties, there is no legal way to collecting the RTV Tax Fees, and the solution to this problem is far away, which may eventually cause complete cessation of public broadcasting based on principles during the period of last 15 years.

Private media houses have been significantly exposed to political clientelism during the selection of the advertisement by public institutions, public companies, and political parties. It’s obvious that benefits are usually allocated to those belonging to “their own ethnic community”, and further, the “suitable” person is sought. “Dnevni avaz”, the daily newspaper has for years been receiving enormous financial means funds from public advertisers. After Fahru- din Radoncic had formed his political party, a significant amount of these means simply disappeared and somehow vanished. While I was a member of RTV FBiH Board of Directors, this media house was constantly forced to make the balance between the “SDA” and “SDP” biased companies in order to keep marketing contracts, essential to their business sustainability. There were cases when BH Telecom refused to continue and extend their cooperation, refusing to sign the contract, because of critically based reports broadcasted in “60 Minutes” TV program. Or, otherwise, the TV editor once hesitated to announce report before the contract had been signed. Basically, these kinds of economic pressures on media houses in BiH are often politically motivated. Still, there are, more or less, clear economic pressures imposed, in terms of insisting of support or at least insisting on critics’ absence. Commercial companies do not only conduct this through so-called “advertisement blackmailing”, but they also often target journalists that are, due to very low monthly earnings they make, accept to (for insignificant money amounts on honorary basis) write articles/texts or simply make reports based on promotional elements. This can hardly be identified and also difficult to prove.

How can we fight against these things or in other terms how to overcome them?

The answer to this question is: Very, very hard! Self-censorship is bound with deep existing ethnic and political preferences. Specific favoritism is not characteristic for three constitutional ethnic groups, but also for the idea of so-called Bosnianism, which is particularly advocated by the civil society. Intolerance towards differences and diversities, specific approaches towards the state of BiH, which at first seems more acceptable than ethnic options (including self – censorship) is present in such profiled media houses. The solution to this problem may be feasible by warming total ethnic and national and political confrontations in BiH which is not the case at the moment.

One of the Western-based solutions in the fight against clientelism is seen through productive educational programs for journalism students, where they would be expected to show the greater amount of consciousness and responsibilities, after graduating and commencing with their professional careers. However, here are some elements of such quantitative situation with this kind of education that had been posted at the Media Initiative Analysis program concerning the educational system of journalists in BiH.

As far as the number of students attending journalism studies is concerned, this department has generally flourished. Journalism department as constituent part of the Faculty of Political Studies in Sarajevo, admits over 120 students every year, with 40 of them attending lectures along with having part-time jobs. Department of Journalism with the Faculty of Philosophy in East Sarajevo admits 30 students; Journalism Department and Communication Studies with the Faculty of Political Studies in Banjaluka admits 50 students, Department of Journalism with the Faculty of Philosophy in Tuzla admits 45 students. Mostar is the only city in BiH with two public university centers reflecting deep diversity in this city between ethnic Croats and Bosniaks as largest and major ethnic groups there. Therefore, the Department of Journalism of Mostar Faculty of Philosophy admits 40 students, while the Department of Communications with the Faculty of Human Studies in West Mostar admits 70 students.

Furthermore, the analysis outlines that there are two private faculties – Faculty of Communication Studies in Banjaluka, admitting 100 students at the Communication Department and Department of Information and Communication with the Faculty of Social Studies in Medjugorje having a small group of 10 students. The above-mentioned number of journalism faculties, that is, journalism departments, does not reflect real market demands of media and communication institutions; instead, it comes as a result of atomization of the state over entities and cantons. Additionally, it is considered as a consequence of ethnical segregation of the state. One could say that every government or every ethnic political structure actually “educate their own journalists” for their own purposes.

Therefore, every year in BiH, over 465 upcoming journalists that are, those who should become professional communicators, enroll to various faculties. 30% to 70% of them graduate on an annual level (undergraduate students) which altogether sums up to around 200 graduate students per year. According to evaluations and estimate conducted by Media Plan Institute, another 200 students from other faculties decide to have a go with journalism and PR studies, so there are over 400 those looking for the job or those that may work as professional communicators. Such enormous market competition does not allow many graduates to find an appropriate job. These young people, assuming they managed to find a job, usually accept jobs, regardless of their formal education, including compromises in editing offices they are eventually engaged with, or they simply serve political aims through media houses they work for. Taking into consideration that their salaries (monthly wages/earnings) would be insufficient (bear in mind that only three media houses pay their employees’ wages that are considered above average, that is over BAM 827, 00 per month), Many of them shall be ready to “bias” articles and texts they post and publish, for merely BAM 100.00 for the purpose of promoting certain company that is, their PR activity.

Conclusion outlines that he progress in this field may be accomplished with great- er level of tolerance and more money invested (one often causes or generates the other).

Currently, we are not in the increasing line of either. But at the end, stopping this fight could be worst of all.

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