Effects of the Media Strategy

The Media Strategy, for which media associations fought so vigorously during the public debate that lasted for more than a year and painstaking negotiations with representatives of the government, will not change in the media scene in and of itself. Reputable Serbian media experts are correct in expressing their skepticism as regards the Strategy, but we need to have in mind that it is always necessary to make a first step and that it is better to have something – a document that at least declaratively obliges the government to improve the situation in the media scene – than nothing at all.

Formally, the Strategy is just a piece of paper that does not legally bind anyone, and things could truly begin improving only after adoption of laws and other documents based on the Strategy. Therefore, during the following months and years, it will all depend on organizations' abilities and skill in their fight for implementation of the Strategy, as well as on the willingness of today's and future governments to fulfill the promises made in the Strategy.

It is certain that no laws will be changed until the parliamentary elections to be held in the spring of the next year. It is highly unlikely that the government and other centers of power that have influence on the media will decide to reduce such influence at the time of election campaign. Fierce political attacks have already started and the media will have a crucial role, as they always have.

However, perhaps some changes bight occur before the elections with regard to expenditure of the money from the republic, provincial and municipal budgets which is allocated to the media. As of January 1, Serbia will be obliged to adhere to European standards related to allocation of state assistance. According to these standards, state funds cannot be used in a manner that would jeopardize the equal position of all participants in the market.

In other words, the state would not be allowed to give money from the budget (i.e. the taxpayers' money) only to state-owned media outlets, as is the usual situation now. In this way, certain media outlets have a privileged position in the market, while at the same time a significant influence on the editorial policy is preserved. Other media outlets, that are not owned or favored by the government, have to struggle to survive in the market that is getting smaller by the day, which is detrimental to media pluralism.

At this moment, it is not clear how the things will develop with regard to financing. There are interpretations according to which the rules on expenditure of state funds are related mostly to the sale of goods and services in the European market and serve only to protect the EU countries from state protectionism. Media associations and organizations are aware that there are no clearly defined rules in this area that would have to be automatically implemented in the domestic media scene. However, they have announced their intention to vigorously fight to achieve changes.

In their belief that the free market requires a fair market competition, that such principle is one of the fundamental rules that have to be upheld, and that the EU should support the request for reforms in expenditure of budget funds allocated to the media, media associations and organizations have been increasingly vocal in their demand that the government introduce new rules in this area. Very soon, a conference will be held in Belgrade, where representatives from the EU and neighboring countries will discuss their experiences about implementation of European rules related to allocation of state assistance.

The main requirement of the Strategy is to finance the public interest instead of everyday business operations of the media. Implementation of this principle would oblige the government to organize public contests for media projects. Independent committees, which would not consist of government's representatives, would decide which projects should be rewarded with money from the state budget. In this model, the government could also influence allocation of money, but its ability to favor the obedient media outlets would be significantly reduced as compared to the system in which a fixed amount of money is allocated to certain municipal media outlets (public companies) each year.

However, mechanisms for this type of allocation of funds have not been defined yet, and it is possible that in the beginning of the next year the authorities might simply announce their intention to continue their old practices. This is the main reason why the media associations and organizations have demanded that the mechanism for transition to project-based financing in the next year be defined immediately after the adoption of the Strategy. The government has simply ignored this demand.

Claims that the transition will result in closure of media outlets that are now owned by municipalities would be acceptable only if we agree that budget funds can be used to finance only the media outlets that are owned by municipalities, provinces or the republic. However, the Media Strategy stipulates that this principle must be abandoned and that the state has to change the manner in which the money is allocated – not to reduce the amount of it that is used to finance the public interest in the media sphere. On the contrary, it would be good to increase these funds.

The Strategy has been adopted, but reforms are not guaranteed. Experience has thought us that continuous pressure by media associations and the public is necessary to achieve them. Apart from the changes in the manner of financing of the media, the Strategy also specifies withdrawal of the state from ownership over the media, ban on creation of monopolies, transparent ownership over the media, as well as many other changes that could be painful.

The Strategy also stipulates creation of six new regional public service broadcasters. Media organizations are strongly opposed to this provision and are of the opinion that such step would additionally strengthen the position of the media that are close to the government. Media organizations are also opposed to the provision which says that councils of national minorities, which are basically political bodies, can own media outlets. Both issues will be further discussed.

Dragan Janjic

About the authors

MC Newsletter,
November 18, 2011