18. 03. 2011

Journalists criticize ministers’ “code of silence”

Belgrade, March 18, 2011 (B92) - Journalists' associations sharply reacted on Thursday to a new code of conduct introduced for members of the government.

According to the new rules, ministers must seek the prime minister's approval before addressing the public.

Not a single minister wished to comment on the code of conduct when asked by B92.

The code was introduced by the government on the basis of amendments to the Law on Government. The Ministry of Economy said its aim was to prevent leak of unofficial, anonymous information "that were often false".

However, president of the Journalists' Association of Serbia (UNS) Ljiljana Smajlović said that the information leak would not stop because ministers were trying to draw individual benefits either for their parties or for their careers and cause damage to some other party they were in coalition with.

"It is bad for readers and it is bad for the public, because it is difficult for people to evaluate validity of information if they don't know its source, it is important who the source is. This will be detrimental to the principle of transparency of work and ministers working one against the other could not be prevented by the regulation. It is a matter of political responsibility of the government members. Media outlets, public and the principle of work transparency will suffer because of such a regulation" Smajlović told B92.

Meanwhile, Commissioner for Information of Public Importance Rodoljub Šabić told B92 that the code would not jeopardize "the publi's right to know".

"One cannot refer to the code in order to restrict the right of a citizen or a journalist to obtain certain information. The code is not a document that could suspend any right of Serbian citizens guaranteed by the Constitution and laws", Šabić said.

Belgrade-based Daily Danas reported on Thursday that two ministers withdrew when interviews had already been finalized after decisions from the "top" and that the editorial office was asked not inform the public about it. The newspaper assessed that this was a case of censorship.