Few people know the local language. media scene kao Rade Veljanovski, retired professor of the Faculty of Political Sciences. First as a journalist, editor, then as an expert and member of working groups for drafting media laws, Veljanovski closely followed changes in the media for decades.
At the beginning of the conversation, he says that the sale of parts of United Group in Serbia will have negative consequences. "There will be a much greater media concentration in Serbia. Not only of ownership, but of content, which means - influence. I have the impression that it was prepared for a long time and that, unfortunately, it was done with the consent of certain European factors", he says.
WEATHER: Why do you think that??
RADE VELJANOVSKI: When we were working on media laws two years ago, we did not know until the very end that Europe had given consent to the government of Serbia to include a provision in the law according to which the media could also be established by a company owned by the state, i.e. Telekom. Many representatives of the profession and associations opposed the change and referred to European practice and standards. And then we got an ambivalent explanation of Europe as there are some places in Europe. But there are strict criteria, control mechanisms that ensure that the influence of the government is not transmitted through those media.
We have laws too..
We have, but they should be implemented by the Regulatory Body for Electronic Media and the Ministry of Information, but we know that this has not been happening for years. Not only now that there is no REM Council, but even when there is one, it is a service of the government.
What a transaction between United Group, owner of Jetel and Telekom means for the audience?
Regardless of the assurances that N1, Nova S and others that have been under the same roof with SBB until now will remain the same and that the editorial concept will not change, I am afraid that it will last for a while, and then we will see certain changes. Telekom has become a monopoly company, the likes of which in the field of media are not found in Europe.
The contract of the mentioned televisions with SBB remains, based on which they will have income. But what about when that contract is about to expire?
Theoretically, those televisions could receive a license for terrestrial coverage, that is, a frequency, by then. But the way things are and the way the government is manipulating the election for REM members, I don't believe it will get a frequency. I am afraid that, regardless of the contract with SBB, there may be some kind of influence and a change in the editorial policy. Remember how it was with Nina when it recently changed hands. And there was an assurance that the editorial policy would not change, so what happened happened. The disappearance of N1 and Nova S in today's form would mean a dark media age in Serbia. Granted, it has been dark for four decades, but it would be even blacker.
Because they are the most powerful media that are a counterweight to the regime's propaganda?
Yes. It is not incorrect that those televisions are also tilted more to one side. Just like CNN is biased to one side and Fox News to the other. Although this is not good in principle, it is justified in Serbia because the government has ensured the utmost influence on the media that have national coverage - both public services and all four private televisions that have a national frequency, plus the systems "Politika", "Borba", "Tanjuga", which formally does not exist... Often even quasi-experts do not understand - it is not the same when the media are under the influence of power centers from the government and the state and when they are under the influence of the critical opinion of the civil public, and even in a certain sense opposition political parties. It's not good either when it's direct, but it's a reaction to what the government is doing.
Telekom finances siaset television with public money. What's the point of that now that he's, as you say, became a monopolist?
Telecom as an economic entity probably has no interest. But he is a state-owned company and does what the government tells him. If the government says they have to support so many media on all cable systems, they will do it even though it is not profitable. In principle, even if we are not in our situation, it is not bad for all televisions to be on all cable networks. I need to see what is happening and what is being said on K1, Tanjug or Juronuz... But most likely the reverse will not apply, that now Telekom's subscribers can also see N1 and Nova S. What Baudrillard called an "informational blizzard" is waiting for us. It is too big an offer in which our public, insufficiently media-educated, will not know how to make a selection of content.
We are talking about freedom of the press., democracy... Isn't it bizarre that the fight for cable is largely decided by who has the rights to broadcast football?
Unfortunately, both Serbia and the world are moving towards the fact that the two dominant social groups will be capitalists and entertainers. Those who dance, play and sing easy notes, perform and host worthless talk shows. Sport is one of the strongest businesses. Bread and games - that's what the state will give to the populus. Thus, indirectly, a large number of people are held in submission. In the 1990s, Pink did not have an informative program, but it also influenced political events with its entertainment program, which portrayed the black reality in pink.
Why we don't have a new REM Council yet?
It is not in the interest of the authorities to complete the procedure. In the electronic media, until now, on a daily basis, there were reasons to impose measures, so REM never did that. And now it practically does not exist. The procedure of resetting the REM Council was started because we insisted that the mandate of the last convocation expired by force of law. Then the authorities did everything to procedurally delay. The procedure itself was carried out by accepting the proposals of some "authorized proposers" who should not be proposers. And they proposed some candidates who do not meet the criteria. It is clearly not convenient for the authorities to have the REM Council at all - even though they shape its composition themselves - because then at least there would be pressure on the Council to do its job. And they don't want that pressure either. Basically, two pillars of media independence have been cut - the public service and the independent regulatory body for electronic media.
On the other hand, small and local media was affected by the absence of American donations. Can it even survive on the market??
Difficult. There is no way we can achieve the conditions for successful media on the market that work professionally, objectively, ethically, interestingly, and topically. There are countless reasons. Let's say, people who think they write "Danas", "Vreme", "Radar" are somehow inert. They are more technologically literate, they find information on the Internet, so they don't buy newspapers. And if they don't buy them, the newspaper has no profit. Since 2014, we have had the possibility in the law to co-finance media that achieve public interest projects from the budget. The idea was that small and local media that do not have commercial content would get help with public money. This has turned into an absurd opposite, so the regime media, Pink, Happy, Informer, Alo... get that money.
Is there a cure??
We will have to lead a social action to reduce the number of media outlets - which will affect many journalists - and for those that remain to be financed by citizens by paying for them. They buy newspapers, pay subscriptions, donate. We do not have a broad and wealthy middle class, but at some point this model will have to be tried.
How important are traditional media in general? We see that the student revolt is organized mostly on social networks.
It must not be misleading. Research in recent years and decades shows that young people are running away from traditional media, but not because they are looking for real information on social networks, but because they are running away from boring content, even though it may be socially relevant. Of course they communicate brilliantly over networks. But it reaches the traditional media and they spread it. Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I think television, print and even radio still have a lot of importance.
No changes – until further notice
