Local public service broadcasters

The idea of creation of local public service broadcasters in major Serbian cities has been floated around several times in recent years, but it was never accepted as a solution that could solve the problems of many local broadcasters in Serbia. The main reason lies in the fact that such an idea was impossible to reconcile with the concept of privatization of all electronic and print media outlets except the RTS, which has been transformed into a public service broadcaster.

The main problem is related to the fact that the public service broadcasting does not entail direct ownership of the state (city, municipality) over the media outlet, but the existence of the system of subscription that funds the activity of the media and the existence of independent institutions that appoint the management of such broadcasters. Taking money from the amounts collected in a form of TV subscription fee for the RTS is unacceptable since these amounts are not sufficient even for normal functioning of the public service broadcaster.

The second possibility is to let the citizens decide in a referendum whether they should pay a TV fee for local public service broadcasters. However, everyone is aware that such a referendum would fail because the citizens have no money and there are many commercial TV channels available via cable operators: therefore referendums have not been seriously discussed in any city.

The concept that envisions ownership of cities and municipalities over public service broadcasters is one of possible solutions, but such a concept would not create public service broadcasters, but simply media outlets owned by local governments who would appoint and remove their managements. Usually this means that a change of government leads to a change in management structures of local electronic media, which is precisely what everyone wanted to avoid after the overthrowing of the regime of Slobodan Milosevic.

The model that was used during the last seven years has not been fully applied in practice. Creation of the public service broadcaster can be considered the only true success, while the privatization of local electronic and print media has been an utter failure. The media were mostly bought by local tycoons with the aim to acquire cheap business premises at attractive locations or to protect their operations and their wealth.

This model has never been applied to leading local TV stations in cities like Belgrade and Kragujevac. These media outlets have simply remained in the hands of local self-governments, although such solution was contrary to the Law on Broadcasting. However, in these two cities the local TV and radio stations have succeeded in retaining their quality and viewers, demonstrating that ownership structure does not have a decisive influence over the trust enjoyed by the media with the audience.

Less than three years ago, a so-called "Kragujevac Initiative" was launched with the aim to create legal framework for survival of major local media outlets owned by local self-governments. This in itself meant violation of fundamental provisions of the Law on Broadcasting. In a series of discussions organized by local media outlets and the Ministry of Culture, a new model of ownership was defined that would prevent a predominant influence of the government over the media, but also provide support and assistance from local self-governments.

The model, in simplified terms, envisions a three-sided ownership over the media. One third of stocks would be owned by the local self-government, one third would be given to the employees, while the rest could be sold in the open market. Therefore, municipalities would not receive more than a third of the property, but would clearly define their interest through such ownership. There was also talk about the idea that owners of privatized media outlets should offer their ownership share to municipalities in order to further motivate them to support the local media.

The advantage of this model also lies in the fact that the fundamental concept defined by the Law on Broadcasting would not need to be dramatically altered. Only the ownership structure would be changed, with the aim to provide a sort of balance of influences and to create conditions for a more independent editorial policy. Of course, it is implied that it would be desirable to create independent supervisory bodies at the city and municipal levels where these solutions are accepted.

The main disadvantage is the fact that most of the local media outlets have been privatized long ago and that this model could be applied only to the largest outlets, those that have remained in the hands of city governments. But the worst solution would be to retain the legal framework that functions only nominally and which is openly violated by the local governments that consider it inappropriate and unusable.

Dragan Janjic

About the authors

MC Newsletter, May 7, 2010