Less than three months since it was formed, it is still not clear what the job of the Temporary Regulatory Body for media monitoring during the election campaign actually is. In this sense, it is mostly no different from some other media groups, bodies and commissions started at Nemanjina 11/Pioirski Park, in order to appease Brussels at one point or another.
However, bearing in mind the state of the media scene immediately before the elections - the blathering of this body down a dead end street is particularly painful and discouraging.
To begin with, the temporary regulator announced the results of media monitoring conducted by REM, which showed that in the first 15 days of January, for example, the government had seven and a half times more time on RTS than all the opposition parties combined.
Commenting on these findings, the chairman of the temporary body, Rade Veljanovski, rightly concluded that it was devastating, but he also explained in the show "Iza vesti" on N1 that the task of the motley group, which should deal with the media in the pre-election period, is not to "change". but to "appeal, advise, encourage and invite the media to behave according to the law".
Hardly anyone expected the media to change overnight, but it is even more difficult to accept that they needed appeals, counseling and the rest listed. The media do not do what they do because they do not know what they are doing, but on the contrary - because they know very well who their real editor is, what they have been told and what they get in return. And it was not discovered by the temporary body that Tanja Fajon and her team are proud of: this is a fact that domestic and international organizations have been pointing out for years and in countless media monitoring.
In accordance with the appeals policy, the temporary regulator also announced in December that it "observes the phenomenon that representatives of political parties and organizations of the government and the opposition opt for certain media and avoid others", and that "many media selectively invite participants from political life to be interlocutors in their programs".
This discovery is also completely accurate and based on facts, but for that reason a delegation from the European capital did not have to come: it was enough to testify from randomly selected journalists about phone numbers from which no one has answered for years, or more simply - to skim the guest lists in the morning programs. At the same time, Tanja Fajon and other MEPs knew this very well even before the inter-party dialogue.
Why then the Temporary Regulator? To tell us general places? How was the "red line" crossed in this or that documentary film, how is the law being broken, how is the media scene polarized and deeply politicized?
It is not disputed that we have another "body", although there are already REM and the ministry responsible for the media. It is not disputed that we had strong dialogues, promotion of quasi-cooperation between the authorities and the media community, strong working groups whose work was systematically belittled.
All that has already become part of the "natural hostile environment" for all those who live from the media and in the media.
It is debatable that on the evening of April 3, many will refer to the temporary regulator or to the crazy "dialogues" on the public service and based on that alone, conclude that everything has been done so that the media at least washes and brushes their teeth before the elections. It will be another "democratic" badge on the government's lapel, another round of illusion production, and things will remain the same as they have been for years.
Unless, of course, the appeals, advice, encouragements and calls of the Temporary Regulatory Body do not bear fruit. And he will, guaranteed.
Read daily news, analysis, commentary and interviews at www.vreme.com
