medienhilfe

Discussion at the event on April 8/9 2002

Participants:

-          Veran Matic, co-founder of RTV B92 and chairman of the Association of Independent Electronic Media ANEM in Serbia

-          Veton Surroi, editor-in-chief of Koha Ditore in Kosova

-          Ivan Nikoltchev, consultant of the media division of the Directorate General of Human Rights of the Council of Europe in Strasburg

-          Roland Salvisberg, programme officer South East Europe, Political Division IV of the Swiss Ministry of Foreign Affairs

-          Roland Brunner, executive director Medienhilfe Ex-Jugoslawien

RTV B92 was an important part of the opposition against Milosevic. Could you tell us a little bit of the B92-story? What is it, what was the idea behind it, its mission?

Veran Matic, RTV B92: The history of B92 can best be characterized as constant struggle against repression. We experienced everything except the killing of a journalist. B92 was banned four times, two times the complete equipment and the premises were taken over by the Milosevic-regime. But we didn’t give up and expanded our activities around the initial radio station. Today RTV B92 comprises a TV-channel, a publishing house, CD-production and many cultural activities.

In authoritarian regimes media have not only the task of providing professional, objective and balanced information, but also of promoting civil resistance, of mobilizing society in the struggle against the regime. Before B92 was founded we studied the European Convention of Human Rights. The concept of B92 is based on this values and goals. Our intention was to make freedom of expression and opinion possible for all citizens. We are committed to an educational mission: to create a different type of political culture and critical citizens. The slogan of B92 reflects these intentions: “Don’t believe anyone, not even us!”

The price for this mission under an authoritarian regime is high because you are perceived as enemy and blamed for all the negative things. You are quiet lonely. And you have to develop a variety of strategies and mechanisms to protect yourself against the constant pressure. During the pre-election campaign in 2000 for example all our equipment was taken over by Milosevic’s people and we were banned. We started transmission from mobile stations throughout the country, by satellite, by internet (with MP3-formate and mailing-lists), by stations out of the country broadcasting into Serbia etc.

But the success of these activities doesn’t only depend on the technologies you use or on political activism. Instead, the quality of the content is the most important. It has to be reliable, refer to various sources and fulfill professional journalistic standards.

Hate speech was a prominent topic when speaking about media and war in former Yugoslavia. How is the situation nowadays?

Veran Matic, RTV B92: The ‘model’ of hate remains, only the focus changes. For example, before the Albanians were the targets of hate speech, now it has become politically incorrect to talk bad about them. Hate speech has turned to homosexuals, Roma and other minorities. Nothing will change this structure unless we change the codex of ethics. For this, training of the journalists but also of the audience is necessary.

What is going on with the broadcasting of the Milosevic trial in Serbia?

Veran Matic, RTV B92: The broadcasting of the Milosevic trial had strange effects – his popularity rose because people didn’t understand the context. For them it was the same man, delivering his endless speeches as he did always. But we have to see how the trial was broadcasted in most of the media: they only showed parts of the trial. They didn’t give any further explanations nor offered any discussions. From the initial four stations which broadcasted the trial only B92 is going on. And we put the trial into a context. The whole program of B92 is oriented on bringing light into the recent past. For a long time we have been talking about the crimes of the last ten years. We confronted the audience with this dark side of our history again and again.

For example we showed a BBC-documentary over the massacre in Srebrenica named ‘Cry out of the grave’. After the first time, there were hardly any reactions. The public didn’t want to look at these horrible things. We decided to broadcast the movie again. Now there were some reactions. We showed it again after three weeks – and only then a public debate about these past events started. It is very hard and painful for the people to admit that such things happened. Therefore we have to try again and again to confront the audience with them. And to establish the historical context in which they happened. The same holds true for the broadcasting of the Milosevic trial. It has to serve as a base for a broader discussion of Serb involvement in the Balkan wars, for responsibility and guilt.

The COE has a development aid focus, but weren’t there enough democratic media in SEE before? Isn’t the support of the COE an intrusion?

Ivan Nikoltchev, COE: Of course there were professional and independent media in South East Europe before. But even in western, democratic countries sometimes problems with the freedom of expression arise. A case in Denmark in 1994 may illustrate what I mean: a journalist had filmed a documentary on extreme nationalists. For this film he was convicted because of spreading hate speech, although his intention was to show negative picture of this group using authentic material. He went to the European Court of Justice in Strasbourg, where he was acquitted based on article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention of Human Rights. This example shows that even in stable democracies there is sometimes a need for supranational institutions to solve certain problems. And in transitional societies, this need is even bigger. In these countries, the existing professional media exist ‘in the desert’, i.e. a democratic framework for there functioning is lacking. Therefore the COE cooperates with the authorities to elaborate new media legislation according to democratic standards, assists the implementation of these laws and engages itself in the training of old and new journalists.

Roland Brunner, Medienhilfe: The work on the framework is very important. And the COE doesn’t intrude the media situation in a country like other organizations do (for example the OSCE which establishes new media in a top-down approach). Nevertheless this work on the framework should be undertaken in cooperation with the people who are already there. Whenever somebody decides to intrude a media situation, proper assessment and a proper strategy is absolutely crucial, otherwise the media market will be completely distorted– as it happened in Kosov@.

Veton Surroi, Koha Ditore: In Kosova some of the worst intrusion took place by Switzerland. Surely, they acted out of good will, but the consequences were fatal. During three years they have been supporting the Public Broadcast System PBS, first Radio Blue Sky – which nobody listened to, then Radio Television Kosovo RTK. It was a complete top-down approach. At the inauguration of Radio Blue Sky a Swiss expert told me: “You know, we have made so good experiences in Rwanda, which we will try to transfer to Kosovo now.” I was shocked. Not that I despise Rwanda or something like this, but the situation of this two regions and the problems we face are completely different. How could they come here and do the same thing?

Today we have the strange situation that the public RTK is broadcasting soap operas and bingo games all the time, although it receives millions in support from the state budget and from the international community– and the commercial, private media are the ones who try to stick to professional standards and social responsibility.

There should be absolute transparency about the assistance of public broadcasters: how much money came from whom, went where, was used for what. Donors should follow a clear-cut strategy and concentrated policy for the support of these media. Otherwise today’s situation will be the result: public media broadcasting cheap entertainment with foreign support and competing with private media, which try to offer good information with less and less support.

How can support of PBS and of private media be combined?

Veran Matic, RTV B92: The support of the west has focused very much on public broadcast systems PBS. But if you want to support public broadcasters, you must notice that in South East Europe the situation is not comparable to the west. Here the supposed PBS consists of state media with a long history of manipulation and control by parties and politicians. On the other hand private media have often offered more public service than these state media.

Roland Brunner, Medienhilfe: This problem arises especially from the notion of PBS as public broadcast STATION, i.e. as a structure, and not as public broadcast SERVICE as content.

Veran Matic, RTV B92: Political pressure hasn’t disappeared with the fall of Milosevic. The new government also exerts pressure. But the means are different. Today we face kind of a passive repression: the legislative situation remained unchanged since the era of Milosevic. The state media didn’t change, often with the same journalists working there who attacked the opposition and supported Milosevic before. They are used to serve, only the master they serve changed, before it was Milosevic, today the new political elite.

The governing coalition consists of 19 parties, constantly quarreling. In this situation each party is interested in having influence on the media to influence the public and disseminate their own views and political positions. Like this the conflict between the parties is transmitted through the media, political influence is exerted through them. And no politician is really interested in supporting independent media. They don’t mind if most of the media only offer cheap entertainment. Like this they don’t have to fear critics.

What is the philosophy of the Swiss government regarding media assistance? On one hand it supports independent media through Medienhilfe, on the other hand projects like radio FERN in Bosnia or Blue Sky in Kosova, which make it much more difficult for independent media to exist. How does this go together?

Roland Salvisberg, MFA PA IV: As mentioned earlier, I am here to represent the Political Division IV, in charge of civilian peace promotion, and can therefore not speak about the Swiss Government philosophy regarding media assistance. It may well be that effects from the support of one project impacts negatively on some other project or a on particular environment. Without any doubt, the history of donor impact through political or development cooperation is far from being a success story but one should also not forget that governments/donors are seldom homogenous actors.

In terms of the media support policy of the Swiss government there are several strategies that complement each other. For instance, the Swiss Development Cooperation SDC is focusing its media assistance in South Eastern Europe more on assisting the transformation process of former state broadcasters into public broadcasters. Secondly, it channels media support more through the Stability Pact for South East Europe but then again it supports independent media too, as seen in Serbia at the end of last year where, among others, it supported the production of B 92 programs. On the other side, the Political Division IV as far as South East Europe is concerned has implemented a shift in its policy last summer.  First, it decided to continue its support of media and made this support to be one of the three, four core thematic activities.  Secondly, in complementation of SDC's strategy, it decided to focus on private or independent media. Instrumental in this policy shift was among others the positive impact that was achieved through the decisive support of independent media in their struggle against the Milosevic-regime back in October 2000. Thirdly, we selected Medienhilfe to be our chief partner with whom we would set policy, strategy and achieve project implementation. A further distinguishing factor of our "philosophy" is that the Political Division IV is frequently required to be both flexible and fast in its media support, especially when involved in providing assistance in crises situations. In such cases it aims rather at offering short-term and punctual assistance.

I may perhaps add that the Political Directorate is currently developing an explanatory text (Botschaft) to a law that will regulate the shape and content as well as resources of civilian peace-building activities. From this process there are the following core thematic activity areas emerging which give a distinct profile:

-          Mediation: classical diplomatic activities (organize talks between hostile groups including cooperation with NGO, negotiate cease-fires or peace-agreements). The Peace Agreement with regard to the Sudan/Nuba mountains reached on Bürgestock recently is one such example.

-          Constitutionalism, Power-sharing, Decentralization, Human Rights: political and expert support of Swiss know-how.

-          Human security: mine action, non-proliferation of small weapons , non state actors.

Now, what may be of interest in this context is that in the process of writing this text it is being considered to make the support to media to become a core sector of our peace-building activities. This in turn may entail an increase in focus and in human and financial resources to supporting media in crises situations.

Does the Swiss government or the COE exert pressure on the governments in the region to adopt changes?

Roland Salvisberg, MFA PA IV: As a matter of principle such issues are being raised, for instance bilaterally by our embassies or through intergovernmental organisations such as the OSCE. This is even more so when core human rights issues are at stake as the protection and promotion of human rights represent one of the five core aims of Swiss foreign policy. But then again, the political weight of Switzerland is limited and one should not expect that policies are being changed just because of an intervention of Switzerland.

Nevertheless, with regard to the support of professional media and in terms of contributing to good government media policy in a recipient country, two things are sometimes not easy to combine. The recent case of Feral Tribune, a critical independent weekly in Croatia illustrates this dilemma: from a human rights perspective but also in terms of democratisation processes it was requested from Switzerland not to stay quiet versus the decision of Croatian authorities (court). But on the other side there are legitimate reasons to keep relationships working and good, and outright intervention into the internal affairs of another state is appropriate only in exceptional circumstances. Moreover, it was thought to be more useful that the media itself, professional associations, foundations etc. generate the necessary public political momentum to try to affect the policy versus Feral whereas a government tries to use its traditional channels which at first are rarely public.

Even after the downfall of Milosevic, there is still a significant need to support and strengthen private and independent media. On the one side, the economic environment in which media operate is very dire, there is a lack of a good and effective regulatory framework, ownership issues are often unclear and interference is still common practice. On the other side, the challenges that societies in South East Europe face are huge and only strong and independent media can excert a beneficial role in transition processes. But we should also see the limits and not expect from local media a bold crusade against, say, corruption when at the same time we know that Swiss media, in an uncomparably more benign environment, do not always hold politicians or big business accountable and fight corruption.

Ivan Nikoltchev, COE: The COE can apply pressure on its member states which signed the European Conventions and therefore obliged themselves to observe them. In the case of the countries of former Yugoslavia, they are under pressure because they all want to join the COE. This wont be possible unless they observe the Conventions. Naturally we cannot exert economical pressure like the European Union as we are not an economical institution. But most of the members of the EU are also members of the COE. Hence, they endorse the policy of the COE.

But we have to be patient. The whole transformation process – economic, political, social - will take time. And we should be realistic: even in the west not everything is at its best. We shouldn’t ask too much from the media in SEE. Soap operas are more popular than investigative journalism also in the West.

source: 
published by: Vanda Mathis vma@medienhilfe.ch date of release on this site (DD/MM/YY): 

go to top

medienhilfe, P.O. Box, CH-8031 Zürich, Switzerland
Phone +41-1-272 46 37,  Fax +41-1-272 46 82, email: info@medienhilfe.ch