Media strategy and policy

“Gov’t has to show will in implementing media strategy” ¹

On his first working day, the President of the United States, Barack Obama, announced strategic "Memorandum on Transparency and Open Government". The Memorandum instructed the executive government bodies, departments and agencies to use new technologies and online techniques to better inform the citizens about their activities and decisions. In May 2009, the Federation of the Finnish Media Industry published a strategy of development of the media sector of Finland under the title "Making the media sector a winner”². The aim was to define strategic goals and measures that would help the Finnish media to adapt to digitalization, the internet and globalization. In the whole text of Finnish media strategy the word "state" is not mentioned at all. The newly-proposed Draft Strategy for Development of the System of Public Informing in the Republic of Serbia until 2016 delegates to the Republic of Serbia 122 complex tasks necessary for realization of the new media strategy. Regardless, not all important issues have been covered. Such a methodology is not a consequence of an inadequate approach chosen by the authors of the Strategy, but a very clear indication of underdevelopment of the Serbian media scene as compared to the modern world.

The word 'strategy' originates from military terminology, and relates to a plan of action aimed at achieving a certain goal. Tactics describes the manner in which battles are fought, while the conditions and circumstances in which they are fought (including the question of whether to fight or not) are the matter of strategy. In this sense, the Draft Strategy for Development of the System of Public Informing in the Republic of Serbia until 2016 is more of a tactical then a strategic document, which was probably the authors' intention – with the aim to describe as many as possible media problems to the subjects that are supposed to make laws necessary for realization of the strategy, and to offer numerous practical approaches to solutions that should be incorporated into laws. The reason is clear: the political power has not systematically regulated the media scene in the last 11 years. Quite the opposite, the state has obstructed the development of the media because of the interests of politicians, political parties and coalitions, and especially in an attempt to keep the media under control. Therefore, the choice of such a tactical approach in the conditions that are prevailing in today's Serbia is actually the biggest advantage of the draft strategy. It clearly specifies to the government all the areas that should be regulated. Consequently, it will be obvious what the government will accept or oppose. After that, it will be possible to estimate the scope of new laws intended to implement the strategy, and the media and media associations will have an opportunity to choose more radical forms of the fight for democratization of the media – if the government's response proves to be disappointing.

The main disadvantage of such an approach is the fact that the strategy does not have an 'information base', but this is not an omission made by its authors, but one of the forms of governmental obstruction of the media. Accurate data about the media sector is either unavailable or difficult to access (requiring expensive research) because the ministries that are relevant for the media and media institutions do not collect, process or publish any information about the media scene. Information is unavailable about the number of employees in the media, the number of dismissed workers, or actual media owners. There are no available analyses about the commercial results of the media, their social influence, their competitiveness, political pressure on their editorial policy and programme schedule, realization of content that is required by the issued broadcasting licenses etc. It is especially difficult – and actually impossible – to find information about business operations and difficulties in activities of state and paragovernmental media outlets. This situation has led to abuse: fabricated and unverified information about the quality of the state media is being spread, while the private media outlets have been stigmatized although they comprise more than 90% of all registered media outlets in Serbia.

In all strategies, there is one principle that cannot be overlooked – adaptability of the strategy to realistic conditions. This is perhaps the weakest point of the proposed strategy, and its authors are aware of it: it is certain that a part of it will not be implemented because almost all of the proposed solutions are aimed at the government. In today's Serbia, the level of development and the social interest of the political elite do not correspond to the interests of the proposers, journalists and journalistic associations. Taking into account the current political environment, the escalation of political control over the media – especially the influential media – will not be eliminated by this strategy, despite the declarative adherence to European standards, and we can expect that many proposals will not gain support. First public debates about the Draft Strategy have already demonstrated such tendencies. Another reason is the incompetence of the state and the decision-making institution and their inability to understand the challenges facing the democratic media, and especially to create practical solutions for so many specific challenges.

During the last two years, in a continuing conflict between the media and the state, some of the non-governmental organizations and their representatives have become close to the government and contributed – passively or actively – to state control over the media. Instead of being media watchdogs, they have become 'pro-governmental organizations' and the freedom of the media has lost its natural allies. Similarly, during the recent years, international donors in Serbia have almost completely abandoned any efforts related to development of the media system. They are mostly dealing with technical education and financing of content-related projects, carefully avoiding any conflict with the government. Their support to the fight against non-democratic practice related to the media (judicial discrimination against the media and journalists; difficult position of the local media; the lack of regulated relations between employers and employees; and many other strategic issues) has been significantly reduced, even in the case of foreign donor institutions that had used to actively support democratization of the media in Serbia. Effects of their influence are not visible anymore, which is confirmed by foreign institutions that systematically estimate the media situation in the world and in Serbia. These estimations unambiguously indicate a general worsening of the media environment in Serbia after 2004.

What can be done? Since the delay in adoption of the strategy and the legal framework has already been announced, we can reliably say that there will not be any strategy nor any media laws before the next elections. This leaves plenty of time for the proposers to define activities – related to the implementation of the strategy – that they would perform themselves. The most important among them will be the activities that would raise the awareness that the media can survive in the market without assistance from the state, and that it is necessary to introduce innovative democratic methods aimed at pressuring the government into accepting the proposed measures for improvement of the media environment. At the same time, it would be a good idea to remind of the deadlines and lost decades.

¹"Gov’t has to show will in implementing media strategy", Mohammad Hawamdeh, the editor of Khaberni.com (The Jordan Times, 20 June 2011)

² The Federation of the Finnish Media Industry, Finnmedia, Helsinki, 5.5.2009

Goran Cetinic

About the authors

MC Newsletter, July 1, 2011