Media Between Đinđić and Vučić: They Thought We Were Their Extended Arm Back Then Too...

Today, twenty-three years later, journalists who worked during that period speak of the profound decline that has occurred. What Đinđić's government either failed or refused to build – independent institutions, a true public service, and a break with the structures of Milošević's regime – has become the foundation upon which a more sophisticated, yet simultaneously more brutal system of media control has been constructed.

From "we did not have a problem accessing information," only a pleasant memory remains

Antonela Riha was the editor of the news program at Radio B92 during Đinđić's government. Her memories of that period are not romanticized – but are unequivocal.

“Radio B92 was very critical, but at no point did we have a problem accessing information, ministers, and politicians in power. We criticized some of Zoran Đinđić's decisions, and he always came to us, gave interviews, and answered every question. There was a relationship of mutual respect, even when there were disagreements or misunderstandings,” says Riha.

That “mutual respect” between the authorities and critical media today sounds almost like historical exoticism. In the years of Aleksandar Vučić's rule, journalists who are not part of the regime's media system have been systematically targeted. “During Zoran Đinđić's government, we worked freely and without fear; today, journalists who are not part of the regime are targeted as enemies of the state, and the repression against journalists and editorial offices is growing stronger,” Riha describes the difference between then and now.

“Spin doctors” even before we knew of them

However, the idyll was not complete even then. Veran Matić, founder and long-time editor of B92, describes how the entire opposition of the nineties, including Đinđić's DOS, had a deep misunderstanding of the role of independent media. A telling detail comes from a conference in Berlin attended by Đinđić. “Zoran Đinđić said that assistance from the international community for independent media should go through political parties. This was shocking for us, as well as for representatives of international organizations,” recalls Matić.

This logic – that the media are an extension of politics, not independent actors of public interest – carried over into the period after coming to power. The “spin doctor” of the Đinđić government, as Matić refers to him, Vladimir Beba Popović, openly attacked independent media and Matić personally. “The spin doctor of that government, Beba Popović, tried to demonize us and often spoke against us in various places. He was allied with Željko Mitrović and defended the model of Pink television that emerged in the nineties,” Matić describes.

The campaign did not remain only in words. “At that time, for example, posters against me were plastered all over Belgrade, with messages that I was a thief and similar accusations. This is not much different from the campaigns we see today against independent journalists, like those conducted by the Center for Social Stability,” says Matić.

A circular composition called pressure

Speaking about the strength of the pressures faced by journalists and media today, Matić does not absolve Đinđić's government – but insists on the difference in intensity.

“Today, the pressure on the media is not only more sophisticated but also more brutal. One does not exclude the other, which means that the pressure on the media and threats to media and journalists have created a kind of circle. No possible space is left without aggression and a hostile relationship toward the media within that broadest possible range,” says Matić.

Matić also reminds us of a detail that often escapes public debate: the current president of Serbia was the minister of information during the most dramatic media suppression of the nineties. “We also have the repetition of the fact that the then minister of information was the current president, and he today repeats those patterns he had then, only from a much more powerful position,” says Matić, alluding to Vučić's role in the implementation of the brutal Law on Information from 1998, which, among other things, led to the closure of Dnevni Telegraf and the magazine Evropljanin.

Missed opportunity – mistakes that have become systemic today

Both Matić and Riha agree on one key point: the democratic changes of October 2000 did not bring about a true media break with Milošević's legacy. Riha highlights the lack of lustration as a key problem.

“Many journalists, some of whom are editors today, jumped to the new authorities and washed their biographies from the time they were subjects of Milošević's regime. Not only journalists – Pink, for example, remained as a media outlet, and it has been forgotten what a poison factory it was in the nineties,” says Riha, adding: “I hope this will not be repeated when the current government is eventually replaced.”

Matić goes a step further and points to specific institutional failures that still persist today. “What is happening today with REM, the Regulatory Body for Electronic Media, was established precisely during Zoran Đinđić's government. The possibility for that body to be completely independent was not created; rather, the construction we have today was established. When you embed a mistake into the system – it remains. This happened 25 years ago and it still governs today; only people have forgotten how it started.”

The same applies to the public service, believes Matić. “At that time, for example, the transformation of Radio-Television Serbia into a true public service was rejected. Instead, the government took over the management of that most powerful institution in the country. Because of this, we still do not have a true public service today.”

A tradition of irresponsibility

One of the most challenging points in Matić's analysis concerns the murders of journalists. In 2001, in Jagodina, Milan Pantić, a correspondent for Večernje novosti who was investigating wild privatizations, was murdered. “At that time, they said they would resolve the case immediately. It is still unresolved today,” says Matić.

The same goes for the murder of Slavko Ćuruvija, who was killed in 1999. “Zoran Đinđić's government promised to first resolve the murder of Slavko Ćuruvija and other political murders from the previous period. None of that has been done,” says Matić, noting that the first-instance verdicts in that case came only thanks to the work of the Commission for Investigating the Murders of Journalists, initiated by the journalistic community – not the state.

International context – it was clearer then that a criminal was in power

One of the reasons why it is more challenging to fight for media freedom today, according to Matić's assessment, lies in the international context. During Milošević's time, Serbia was internationally isolated, and its status was unequivocal.

“At that time, it was clear that Slobodan Milošević was a criminal, and it was much clearer to explain what was happening and what the position of independent media was. Today, it is much harder to demonstrate the position of independent media due to this dual approach to Serbia – on one hand, the desire for the country to move towards the European Union, and on the other hand, trust in the authorities that they are on that path,” says Matić.

Thirty years of the same inversion

In conclusion, both interlocutors return to the same conclusion: what is happening today is not a complete novelty. It is a continuation of a process that has never been interrupted.

“We have a continuity of people in power. Many who are now in high positions were important even in Milošević's regime. And that is why we have this enormous inversion of reality, where the victims are victimized again, and those responsible play the victims. This is a terrible injustice in which Serbian society has been living for thirty years,” concludes Matić.

Source: Zoomer