The Media Strategy and the invisible spirit of journalism

We have heard many times during the recent months that preparation of the Media Strategy was completed and that the National Parliament of Serbia might discuss the document before the end of September. The public debate ended precisely at the mom ent when the political oligarchy hinted at new elections. Since then, everything went silent. Why is there such a delay if the Media Strategy would improve the situation in the media, as its authors, the government and media professionals claim? What has caused the refusal to accept the media reform that was supposed to take place until 2016?

First, within the media scene it is difficult to reach a compromise with "decades of conformism" that characterize the dozens of public media companies, from the national to the local level. They have been emphasized as one of the most important issues in the Media Strategy. These media outlets have hundreds of employees who would lose their jobs after changes in budget financing. The political elite wants to avoid this outcome on the eve of elections, while the said employees perceive this as something that they are entitled to. Efforts to create public service broadcasters at the level of local self-government, in any form, will be meaningless within the Media Strategy and the new media law unless the Constitution is changed. The government and media professionals are aware of that.

The Law on Public Information also needs to be adapted and amended. Opinions are divided. We should carefully avoid making the existing situation even worse. Among other things, the current law – which was accepted without a hint of protest from the journalistic community – forbids reporting on any information that would unfoundedly describe someone as a perpetrator of any punishable offense, or as being guilty or responsible for it. At first this seems reasonable, but the principle of "cautiousness above anything else" became the defining characteristic of journalism in Serbia.

The Media Strategy should first deal with the issue of media ownership. In that case, everything else would be clearer. Transparency of ownership over the media is a very sensitive issue. Ties between the media and untraceable money channels, as well as relationships between tycoons and influential media outlets in Serbia, have made the media scene susceptible to influence of big capital and politics. For many years, these two factors have had a strong influence in Serbia, while no one has tried to oppose the centrifugal forces resulting from the Law itself. Governments and ministers come and go; the laws reflect the attitudes of media professionals, but they have failed to fulfil the true needs of the Media Strategy. The Minister of Culture and Informing, Predrag Markovic, said that the draft Media Strategy would be delivered to the National Parliament of Serbia by the beginning of autumn, but that the adoption of appropriate laws would be the more difficult phase. It should be emphasized that the Strategy cannot solve the problems in the media scene in Serbia. Implementation of unsatisfactory regulations during privatization has allowed the state to have a significant influence over the media by retaining ownership in crucial media outlets. At the same time, tycoons and media owners have strengthened their positions. The non-existent media framework has been closed from all sides. Analysis of the current situation in the Serbian media mostly proves that the state still does not know who should be in control of the media sector, and how. The lack of the political will is an important, and maybe even decisive factor in defining and preparation of the Media Strategy. Perhaps we are not lagging behind our own promises as much as we thought – there is still plenty of time until 2016!

Radovan Borovic

MC Newsletter,
September 23, 2011