Dark Clouds in the Media Sky: Could We End Up Without Reliable Information?
The President of the country accuses independent and non-compliant media of terrorism, treason, and foreign mercenarism, thereby creating a basis for a "legitimate" reckoning with them. The authorities hope to achieve complete control over the media space in which they already have dominance. The obscuring of the informational horizon is becoming increasingly certain.
Almost seventy years ago, the researcher of propaganda strategies in public communication, Vance Packard, argued that a manipulative approach to politics is not a modern invention. Even Napoleon Bonaparte engaged in promoting himself and his policies through the press, and before him, Machiavelli contributed to enhancing the visibility of rulers and their viewpoints. Fascist and Nazi ideologies brought political propaganda to its peak, followed by Stalinism and other totalitarian forms of governance. The purpose is always to glorify leaders and their followers while belittling opponents, critics, and advocates of social change. Not only are they belittled and discredited, but they are also suppressed, silenced, and eradicated.
Rigid, authoritarian regimes do not tolerate freedom for others; they do not abide by the rule: “Do not do to others what you do not want done to you,” or “the freedom of some is limited by the freedom of others.” Those in power want to be the sole voices in the public space, ensuring that only their words are heard, and they seek media promotion to secure support and unanimity. No alternative opinions are tolerated so that citizens do not begin to weigh arguments and draw their conclusions about the quality of life and possibilities for improving social relations, thus adapting their behavior accordingly.
Levels of Accusation(s)
The president of the country accuses independent and disobedient media of terrorism, treason, and foreign paid advocacy, thereby creating a basis for a “legitimate” reckoning with them. The state is endangered, the Serbian people are under threat, and the destruction of Serbia is underway; these are messages emanating from the top of the government, embodied in one man who is the measure of everything. Targeted by Aleksandar Vučić, TV N1 received threats reminiscent of the fate of the French weekly Charlie Hebdo. Novi Sad journalist Žarko Bogosavljević has faced over 30 attacks recently but does not report them to the authorities due to a lack of trust. The editorial team of the IN Media portal from Inđija has been under pressure since its inception, and editor Verica Maričić has been physically attacked. Journalists are physically harassed, detained for questioning, and media outlets face so-called SLAPP lawsuits intended to intimidate them, jeopardize their operations, and force them to consider whether professional activity is worthwhile. This is not a new issue but has a long-standing continuity with examples that are impossible to encapsulate in a single journalistic text.
In addition to physical harassment, threats, and populist targeting, one of the most effective ways to reduce space for independent, professional, and critically oriented media is – money. In project co-financing competitions for media serving the public interest, those who are the antithesis of the public interest continue to receive the most public funds. Večernje novosti, one of the regime's propaganda pillars, received more than eleven million dinars this year, which is nearly one hundred thousand euros. These newspapers received taxpayer money from the Ministry of Information and Telecommunications, and local governments from Belgrade, Kragujevac, Sremska Mitrovica, Zrenjanin, Opovo, Kladovo, Bor, Lapovo, Velika Plana, Trstenik, and Rekovac also contributed. The fact that the Press Council accepted 15 complaints against the Novosti portal and printed edition, which should be taken into account according to the Law on Public Information and Media when deciding on subsidies, was ignored in this case. A similar situation occurred with Informer and the editorial team of Alo, which also received significant sums from Belgrade, even though these media, according to the Press Council, have repeatedly violated professional and ethical standards.
In project co-financing competitions for media serving the public interest, those who are the antithesis of the public interest continue to receive the most public funds. Večernje novosti, one of the regime's propaganda pillars, received more than eleven million dinars this year, which is nearly one hundred thousand euros.
Vojvodina is part of the republic’s practice. The newspaper Vojvodina Press, as reported by ANEM, received over 24 million from the republic and local governments, Novosadska televizija received more than 15 million, and RTV Pančevo received over 11 million dinars. It is possible that these three media outlets will receive even more money as this year’s competitions have not yet concluded.
Aid, but to whom
This distribution of budget funds proves that the provisions of the law on project co-financing have turned into their opposite, as their original intention was to assist small local media and those informing in the languages of national minorities due to their objectively challenging sustainability. Now, money is being awarded to those who are the most powerful in the media world, have extensive territorial coverage, and besides earning on the market, they also receive financial support “from the pot,” as the president recently revealed. In other words, state financing of the media has largely returned, which is unacceptable according to European experience and standards, as well as in the spirit of our media laws. It should be particularly emphasized that this way, regime media are supported, while others are placed in a subordinate position with completely uncertain survival. Recently, Niš TV emerged at a time when no one is able to issue a permit or approval for its operation, but the appearance of Aleksandar Vučić on the first day explained everything.
State financing of the media has largely returned, which is unacceptable according to European experience and standards, as well as in the spirit of our media laws.
Examples of pressure on journalists and media that are not part of the government’s propaganda arsenal result in a diminishing space for critical and opposition thought, with a tendency for such thinking to vanish entirely from public discourse, leaving only a part of the media system under government control. This is a revival of the regime's behavior from the nineties when RTS was created, integrating Radio-televizija Beograd, Radio-televizija Novi Sad, and Radio-televizija Priština, along with the inclusion of several local electronic and even print media. The establishment of a propaganda mechanism without exception was also facilitated by the complete control over media houses like Politika, Borba, Tanjug, and others. Today, all this is repeating with intensified vigor, aided by Telekom's network of quasi-state media.
The problems on Serbia's media scene are rapidly multiplying and do not contribute to the democratization and professionalization of the media system. The sale of the SBB network and the removal of Dragan Šolak from his position at BC Partners, which is the majority owner of United Media, under which N1, Nova S, Danas, and Radar operate, has resulted in an appeal from the editors of these media in the region to maintain the possibility for professional media operation. These circumstances have pleased government representatives, who hope to completely occupy the media space where they already have dominance. When the announced shutdown of Al Jazeera and the objective difficulties of other media are added to this, along with the public service's avoidance of performing its legal role, the darkness of the information horizon becomes increasingly certain.
The games being played with the REM Council, if concluded in the foreseeable future, will certainly not bring improvement and will not provide the necessary oxygen for democracy. There are no indications that the government will allow the appointment of a constructive, competent Council that is favorable to the public interest. In the best-case scenario, we will have two or three members advocating for a legal and consistent approach to the obligations of the regulatory body, while the regime will merely add another tick to fulfilling European expectations, thereby merely conserving the circumstances and contributing to dark forebodings.
There is no simple way to save ourselves from the darkness that threatens us. But we can help stoke the flame that has been ignited and is happening on the streets, in the squares, on the roads, and in universities. It is not just about some; it is about all of us.
Source: Radar
