-
Published on Tuesday, 17 October 2006
-
Written by Veran Matic
The argument went like this: "The donors are leaving Serbia abruptly and the large number of independent media established during Milosevic’s reign are in fact in a very bad situation, because of the slow pace of economic and political reforms.
"Many of the people who remain, who call themselves "media donors" are in fact tycoons, who earned a fortune under very suspicious circumstances during Milosevic’s rule, or they are the mob which was created also in his time."
So, instead of donors who developed independence and freedom, we now have the so-called donors who belong to the blocks of certain tycoons or are members of the mafia structure. As a result, instead of unbiased and objective reporting, the media ends up manufacturing lies for those who pay for them.
In this way, everything the independent media tried to develop during the dark years of Milosevic’s war policy and autocratic reign gradually becomes the opposite.
Of course, there are exceptions to the rule, but those media operations are struggling to survive and to compete in one of the most competitive media markets in Europe, additionally burdened with the lack of any legal regulation.
From this Serbian example we can learn a lesson - the donors in most cases leave suddenly without any alternative plan, leaving the media in hands of underdeveloped democracies.
This in most cases means the death of independent professional initiatives. They fall prey to the pressure and influence of local political or economic forces, or major international networks that tend to eliminate from the programme everything that does not generate profit. The casualties include educational programmes and programmes which serve to control the democratic development of society.
Of course, without donors we would not have been able to create a respectable independent media scene which Serbia acquired until Milosevic’s ousting during the peaceful protests back in 2000. It took several years to create this media backbone of the resistance movement in Serbia.
Around this media core, we had established various movements and initiatives, and thanks to that media, despite numerous attempts to ban it, we had a big march to Belgrade from all parts of Serbia, which culminated by peaceful overthrow of Milosevic. After that, this recipe was implemented in other countries, but nowhere was this role of media as significant as in Serbia.
The project called "Pebbles" carried special weight.
B92, the "brain" of this whole media network, was banned, but through "Pebbles" we managed to continue producing our radio and TV programme and distribute it alternatively through the local stations which re-broadcast it all over Serbia.
However, this was not enough. We placed very powerful transmitters all around Serbia in order to be able to reach those citizens whose towns were not covered by local stations. We used all media platforms: the internet, the telephone network, digital and analog satellite lines (all were jammed by the army - a fact later confirmed in the military documents), short-wave transmitters, transmitters which used to be active during the Cold War, etc.
The key to our success was the fact that we continued to produce the programme in Belgrade until the very last moment, to avoid being accused of taking part in some foreign intelligence service project.
For the same reason, we refused to broadcast our programme through the existing transmitters of the stations financed by some Western governments and parliaments. Instead, we created our own infrastructure and continued airing despite the destruction of some of our transmitters (the first transmitters installed in Bosnia and Herzegovina were blown to pieces on the first day of broadcast).
What was most important was that our output was highly credible, and our journalists were exceptionally professional and brave. All of these factors contributed to the decision by donors to support the project, which I regard as one of the biggest projects of media intervention in Europe for several decades. This project helped the citizens of Serbia to get ready for the final encounter with Milosevic’s criminal regime - and what’s most important: to do it peacefully.
After the change of regime, independent media soon become a burden to the new democratic forces. Such forces were used to getting support from that media (while they were opposition leaders). Now, they experienced on their own account, the role of the media as the watchdog of democracy, and were often criticized.
As we are aware today, this criticism was more than justified: they were not resolute in dealing with Milosevic’s legacy; they hesitated to make a final break with the past cultural, economic and social model.
Nowadays, it is obvious that new government inherited those mechanisms, along with the tycoons, business dealings, etc. They showed a lack of determination to investigate war and bring the perpetrators to justice.
So, the new political leaders missed their chance to help the whole country go through the process of catharsis. They failed to create the foundation for the necessary reforms in all spheres which would in turn bring new initiatives that would help in healing society and building future prosperity.
This lack of tenacity, and the continuing influence of Milosevic’s powerful circle, led to the current lapse in the process of reforms - culminating in the terrorist assassination of the reformist Prime Minister Zoran Djindjic.
This incident has slowed down all other processes as well, so Serbia today still lives under the burden of Milosevic’s legacy. This is obvious in the refusal to extradite those indicted for war crimes: Ratko Mladic, who is believed to be in Serbia, and indirectly Radovan Karadzic, who is hiding somewhere in Bosnia.
Moreover, Serbia is a borderless state: the negotiations on the status of the province of Kosovo are underway. This territory is, since the air raids on Serbia in 1999, under the auspices of international community. It’s still unknown whether Serbia is going to be in a state of union with Montenegro, etc.
All in all, there is still a great need for the existence of an independent media and the unbiased information and analysis this brings. An independent media is one of the safeguards against manipulation and other acts which could lead to tragic outcomes.
But few people today seem aware of this role of independent media.
The solution to this problem is to support projects which will bring no commercial revenue to the media, but are socially significant. Also, the media must be trained to become competitive, which involves developing their skills and professionalism.
As for B92, we were very lucky to get help in training from the European Agency for Reconstruction (EAR). In terms of our professional structure, our clear ownership structure and establishing a modern way of corporate operation, the assistance of the Media Development Loan Fund (MDLF) has been invaluable throughout the past four years.
This process has helped us keep our leading position among radio stations in Serbia. As the youngest TV broadcaster, we are currently ranked fourth according to the audience share, while our web site is the most frequently visited in the region of Southeastern Europe.
At the same time, we have managed to preserve our credibility, not just in our country (whatever the borders of our country might be), but on an international basis.
We still face great challenges in our daily operations, but we are acutely aware of the valuable help we’ve received from others who shared their experience with us. So we are ready to help other media and organizations striving to defend media freedom and all who want to make the world we live in a better place.
Veran Matic, Chief Executive Officer, B92
Editor's Note: Veran Matic was the first of several figures from independent media operations and media development organisations to be invited to submit opinion pieces to this Media Helping Media site.
Helping journalists where the media is still developing
