What the new media laws bring

MAJA NORTH, president of the European Federation of Journalists and the Union of Croatian Journalists

How can it be a European direction and practice to pass laws that are not in accordance with the media strategy? When the process of accepting the European law on media freedom started, it was a worrying sign that Hungary and Poland were the first to say "no problem". On the other hand, it is not difficult to explain to someone who comes from those countries how for our political leaders all media regulations and strategies are letters on paper that are not adhered to in practice. However, we need those letters because we need something to hold on to. Since I have been an active president of the Union of Croatian Journalists, and especially of the European Federation of Journalists, I have noticed that Europe considers the issue of Press Councils or media councils to be one that would help regulate the media situation in every media environment. Weakening such a body and its independence is certainly not the European direction. Ownership is another point of contention to which I do not see the connection with Germany referred to by your authorities. It is not the model provided by your laws, it is not the German example. Germany has several large and extensive public services. When they refer to the fact that there are media in Croatia that are owned by cities and counties, yes, they exist and that is terrible. The protection of workers' rights in these media is extremely worrying: colleagues depend on whether the city or county will provide them with work resources. It turned into a propaganda machine. In the past year, we tried to force the political authorities to change that system, and in cooperation with media experts, we built a proposal for a transparent system of financing local media.

VELJKO MILIC, lawyer, member of the working group for drafting the Law on Public Information

Coalitions for media freedom, UNS, ANEM and other journalistic and media associations requested that this law first regulate the competitive co-financing procedure. Of course, the procedure for allocating money from the budget in this way cannot be regulated unless the commissions that allocate these funds are professionalized and finally start paying attention to the observance of professional and ethical standards when allocating funds. The rule in our country is that the most budget money for co-financing of public interest is given to those media that most violate the code of journalists of Serbia and do not adhere to any professional standards. The provisions related to the professionalization of the commissions for the allocation of money have entered the Law, and there is a problem that these provisions will begin to be applied with a delay - there will be a period in which an online platform for project application should be formed.

Another problem that came up was the position of the Press Council. Despite the fact that the majority of members of the working group were appointed by representatives of state authorities, no consensus was reached when it came to the issue of the Press Council, so the vote was taken and with the majority of votes - where some representatives of the state also voted - the Press Council found itself in the law as it is as proposed by the Coalition for Media Freedom. At the penultimate meeting of the working group, we learned that the Ministry proposed to change another norm in order to supposedly bring it into line with some other laws, and in fact, this norm changes the entire essence of the media strategy and the Law on Information. With that norm, the state actually returns to the ownership of the media, and as proposed by the Ministry, it was entered into the Law. The working group finishes its work on the law and starts discussing the public debate, where we learn that the Ministry, without any consultation, even changed the norm that was voted on, which referred to the Press Council, without any consultation. Such a norm did not pass through the working group.

The proposal of the Ministry is that the state can establish legal entities that must not be beneficiaries of state aid and must not engage in activities of public interest - in other words, they cannot be public companies. You have a similar situation now when it comes to media whose publishers are national councils of national minorities. Those media suffer the most pressure from the founder because the founder of the institution appoints the governing bodies and the publisher. The same situation will be if this provision passes: the state will appoint the management bodies of the publishers of these media and through them will have absolute control over the media. Ten years ago, the state decided to withdraw from the media and now suddenly wants to return. This is not prescribed by the media strategy or the action plan for the implementation of the media strategy. My opinion is that the state is just trying to legalize what it is already doing with some media.

GORDANA NOVAKOVIĆ, general secretary of the Press Council

The Press Council was included in the Law, but in a way that makes meaningless both what we wanted and the meaning of the provision that concerned that citizens' money should not be distributed by the state to those who are unable to respect professional standards. I am afraid that the entire public discussion organized by the state has been reduced to the story of the work of the SZŠ - do we need self-regulation, how does the SZŠ work - an attempt to make sense of everything we have ever done and to discredit and diminish the importance of the self-regulatory body and self-regulation in general. The solution that currently exists in the law is that data will be requested from the Press Council only for those media that accept the jurisdiction of the SZŠ. This means that media outlets that have accepted jurisdiction will have to comply with the Code in order to receive money, while the latter can say they do not recognize our jurisdiction and can violate the Code with impunity. This is the second time that the Ministry has changed that provision.

For the first time, the proposal of the working group was changed so that SZŠ and other self-regulatory bodies were added, which left room for the formation of an unlimited number of self-regulatory bodies. This turned out to be quite a farce. We will be in the law, but in what way? Through the discussion, it was further made meaningless that the SZŠ of the problematic journalistic associations was presented as some body to which the state will give a bunch of money that we will distribute to the media we like. In the meantime, there were some talks with the representatives of the Government and we have some assurances that the current provision will change, but for now it is like this.

FREE GEORGIEV, director of Vesti Nova S and journalist of "Vremena"

We make media laws and talk about money. So, who, to whom, why and in what way gives money? We have never heard from this government how they see the media. They say, you can say what you want. And when you can talk as you want, then you don't need SZŠ. What will the regulator do to you when we have already given you absolute freedom?

It was transferred to this part of the public to talk about whether the regulator will have a role and whether it will be able to have a say in the procedure for the allocation of public funds that are normally shared by local governments and the Government of Serbia. I don't know how much it is now on an annual basis. It is the media's own fault for agreeing to the freakish system of project financing that was established ten years ago. But I say, the debate about that is over. And actually, the main thing is media ownership. Should the state or not be the owner? The state said ten years ago that it would not own the media. Everyone supported it. But she continued to be a media owner, to found and buy media. We, as an interested public, told them that they are breaking the law. We told them that they cannot be media owners even indirectly. Today they tell us: yes, the state owns Telekom and you must allow Telekom to own the media. The main thing is at that level. It's about the one and a half billion, I would say, that have been spent since 2018 on changing the complete media infrastructure of Serbia. The question is what kind of media do we want, as I said at the beginning, and are such media possible in such a country? Institutions do not comply and do not implement the law, they break it and then at one point they say: that's the situation, let's legalize it now. That's how we got to this state where they want to legalize an illegal state.

GORDANA NOVAKOVIĆ

We absolutely insist on the working group version. We made a concession when we abandoned what is written in the media strategy that the media must accept the jurisdiction of the SZŠ in order to be able to apply for funds at all. We will absolutely not give up on this request, there is no reason to be in the law as proposed. Because it is the opposite of everything we wanted to achieve. All media that want to be in the self-regulation system are practically punished and told in advance that they cannot get funds if they violate the code, and it can happen to anyone. All other media outlets are given the opportunity to continue violating the code and to make it practically legal now.

VELJKO MILIC

Competition commissions have a number of criteria that they need to evaluate. Adherence to ethical and professional standards is only one of the criteria that will be evaluated during the evaluation of the projects and the media that proposed them. The existing solution is unsustainable. According to one article in the Law, when applying for the competition, the media must submit proof that they have adhered to ethical standards, and according to another - that the SZŠ, as a self-regulatory body, will only work with media that have recognized its jurisdiction. This existing solution does not say at all how the media that did not recognize the competence of the Press Council will meet that criterion. I can also interpret it as meaning that they will not be able to meet that criterion at all and that they will not be able to participate in the competition, but the question is how it will come to life in practice if it is adopted this way. My own opinion is that it will ultimately not be passed in this form because it is too unsustainable to remain in law.

The option of more self-regulatory bodies creates chaos. A group of three media is enough to establish a media association that will be a self-regulatory body. There can be hundreds of them. We do not know whether they will bring their own codes or just interpret the existing ones differently. And now, phantom associations are being established that should simulate some parallel council for the press. In the previous working group, we had warnings from individual members that, if the SZŠ enters into law, they will organize their own SZŠ tomorrow. I think the best proposal is the one that was in the law and behind which the working group stood.

FREE GEORGIEV

In fact, we do not have a public debate with the Government. The discussion would mean that there is some strategy and that we know what we want the media to be and create a legal framework accordingly. This is a negotiation. I would not be surprised if they say: let only the Press Council remain. We had a situation many years ago, when the first laws were passed by the media, that people like Željko Mitrović in vain invented associations and all of them became relevant and could delegate. This is now being done with SZŠ. I think it's a tactic. The bottom line is that what is the big scene that we are witnessing, where the main assets and the main influences are, that it remains unchanged. As it is now established, with the dominance of Telekom, which the state now recognizes as the owner, in 2018 the state refused. We wrote texts, referred to the articles of the law to explain to us whether the state is allowed to exist. Now the minister says: yes, that is the most normal thing. Why should we give it up?

Of course, it is not good for us when 100-150 people are engaged in professional journalism in Serbia. Without that change, everything remains in the range of negotiations. So, let's negotiate a little, maybe we'll give you something so that Europe can extend those funds. It should also be said that she entered into this finalization of media laws because she has committed herself and wants to withdraw some European funds.

VELJKO MILIC

There are also positive things in the draft Law. But we don't know if they will stay in that form. I mentioned that in the media whose founders are national councils of national minorities, there is a certain pressure on editorial policy. There is a set of norms that should reduce that pressure. For the first time, civil sector media will be recognized in the Law. Some provisions related to professionalization and the work of competition commissions also exist. But what we are talking about are three articles of the Law that can be changed and we can say: okay, we have done something. The problem is that those three members are crucial and without them everything else is meaningless.

IVANA STEVANOVIC, executive director of the "Slavko Ćuruvija" Foundation

This bill has brought about some great opportunities, and we've gotten rid of those famous caucus committees from nominating council members. The criteria for the selection of members of the REM Council have been tightened, as well as the measures that the REM Council has at its disposal to implement when it comes to violations of the law and regulations of the REM. This is all good and something that is in line with the media strategy.

We remain stuck on what is the essence of the amendment of this law, which is primarily the reset of the REM Council. If this advice continues to work like this, it seems to us that all other changes become meaningless. That and some other details such as the introduction of the REM director institute with insufficiently clear authorities and his role in relation to the Council. I think that the refusal of the Ministry to introduce the code of conduct of REM council members into the Law is quite important and that its violation is another possible ground for the dismissal of Council members. We see no reason why such a thing should not be accepted.

The law could have been good, but we are stuck on the political will to implement the law and now to fully implement the strategy, and thus to achieve something that was defined as the policy of this government three years ago and that was worked on for so long.

STEVAN PAJOVIĆ, lawyer

For me, as a member of the working group, there are many dilemmas regarding many provisions of the law. Did we regulate it well or not? We had three months to draft the law, and for a long time we didn't have any market analysis to know what we were regulating in the first place. At most, we predicted some solutions based on our feeling. For example, the possibility of passing a new directive appeared to impose some new levies on media service providers in order to develop their film industry, that they pay into a fund or finance directly - and this is tempting because we can also oblige foreign media service providers to invest in our cinematography. We didn't come up with any solution because we didn't have any basis for it, I expected that we would solve it. We introduced the obligation of Serbian music on radio stations, 25 percent. And a Serbian film should be mandatory.

The strategy did not only say that REM should be reset, but also that REM should find new sources of funding in order to distance itself from media service providers. REM lives from four national televisions and of course they will not take permission from any of them because they will not have any salaries. But, again, within the working group, we did not manage to find any new types of financing. There are many questions that have not been resolved.

MILOS STOJKOVIĆ, media law expert

The media reform is partial, only two of the four laws that fall into the corpus of media laws are changed. The law on public media services is not changed and the law on advertising is not changed - and since the main goal of the Law on Electronic Media is to implement the European regulation, i.e. the directive on audio-visual media services, which devotes a significant part to advertising, it can be seen that we now segmentedly implemented what Europe is asking of us now, which was not the case in 2014, when all the laws were in a package. Another thing is the problem of the process itself - unlike the Law on Public Information and Media - it nevertheless brought together representatives of the media coalition and representatives of some other organizations and associations. On the other hand, there was no clear idea of ​​what should be done. This led to the media strategy being partially implemented, to the professional and general public getting the impression that the key measures were not followed. The delay in the process is evident. As for REM, it has been talked about a lot and it is the cancer-wound of every media reform, as well as the beginning and the end of every attempt to change the situation in this sphere.

The Law on Electronic Media - as it is - is quite good and should only have been applied. However, a lot of abuses in practice have led to the fact that there is a lot of distrust between the public and REM and between the public and the state, and REM is not perceived as an independent regulator but as part of that machine.

So why does the government want to keep bullion? So, the state is - always a conservative and inert organism and always looks for ways to keep all the levers of power and influence. Public pressure must be such as to produce some concessions. The second reason is, in the main, that he does not want to lose indirect influence on the media sphere through the control of the regulator. I had the opportunity to see the Ministry's response to the remarks of the media coalition regarding the issue of the so-called entrusted affairs. The representatives of the Ministry literally said: the state cannot trust anyone without maintaining a degree of control outside the state administration system - and that is a key segment of the regulator's independence! Functional independence – legal separation from the state and functional independence from media service providers. This is prescribed by the directive that is implemented in this law.

SASA MIRKOVIĆ, professor at the Faculty of Media and Communications

We are not naive to think that even if there is a reset of the REM Council automatically, those future members will be better than the existing ones. But the fact is that there is a media strategy that is not a binding document, but the fact is that it was brought by this Prime Minister three and a half years ago, and if something was controversial then, then it should have been pointed out. And not now, with hindsight, to remember that maybe something didn't go through the proper procedure - which I know it did - that is, that it is unconstitutional under the allegations.

I think what is missing from this debate is to scan the situation a bit, that is, we are entering the 12th month of the Ministry of Information and Telecommunications' existence, and that we are in the process of public discussion, and so far there is no State Secretary for Media or Assistant Minister for Media in the Ministry. I think that speaks volumes about the attitude of the leaders of this government towards that ministry and public debates. In this sense, the working group was created when we had a conversation with Minister Jovanovic in the government a few days after he became a minister. Everyone pointed out that he showed that the drafting and adoption of media laws is a priority. However, he told us at that meeting that the working group for amendments to the Law on Electronic Media will be formed by media and journalist associations proposing experts who will participate in that working group. I do not want to challenge the credibility and expertise of those who were members of the working group, but the fact is that this agreement was not followed. We were only put in front of a fait accompli and a few weeks later we were informed that a working group for amendments to the Law on Electronic Media had been formed, in which prof. Veljanovski, Surčulija, Ljubiša Kuvukalović, Stevan Pajović and chaired by Katarina Tomašević, assistant minister, but from the field of telecommunications. In other words, media associations, journalist associations were excluded from this process during the process of drafting these laws within the working group. We had no information and only a draft appeared before us.

The second part is related to the proposers. It is a good thing that parliamentary committees are no longer proposers, but it is not clear what criteria the Ministry was guided by when it proposed in the draft law that the proposers should be the Ombudsperson, the commissioner for equality, but not the commissioner for the availability of information of public importance. The most important thing for investigative journalism.

STEVAN PAJOVIĆ

REM failed to build authority and consistency in decisions. The mere fact that media service providers know that REM exists is enough to prevent them from breaking the law. This was not the case in the previous period.

In my legal opinion, the REM reset goes against the directive which insists on a greater guarantee of the independence of the regulator. I don't think that the regulator is more independent by the fact that the government can change the entire REM convening by passing or amending some law. I'm afraid that we will get into the practice that every next government, if it doesn't like this convocation, it will be enough to change a few things through amendments and additions and say: now the REM is being reset. I do not see that it contributes to the independence of the institution. And now, should we suspend the law - I don't think we should. I thought that stricter conditions for the election of REM council members should be foreseen, but will it lead to better council members, who can guarantee that while the government is as it is... We could write whatever we want in the law . We cannot lead them by the hand. You either apply the law or you don't, and that depends on the state, on the government itself.

MILOS STOJKOVIĆ

The key requirement is the functional independence of REM and legal separation from the state administration. In my opinion, you cannot establish the legal separation of the regulator if he is in some state administration system. The state administration law states that the competent ministry can take away jobs for 120 or 180 days, which is a direct attack on the functional independence of REM. On the other hand, when talking about the reset of the REM Council, I did not see the Ministry's explanation, but I don't think we can talk about the domain of the constitutionality of acquired rights, because the Constitution itself shows that the field of public information means the segment that concerns the electronic media. , regulated by law. So, if by law you regulate the position, criteria, functioning of members, management of the board of directors, i.e. council, etc., then you can foresee a reset by law. It is not a reset to throw out council members from the REM building on the day of the adoption of the law, but rather to hold a new public competition within a reasonable period of time, that is, a competition according to the provisions of the new law, which will take into account the new criteria, which, I can say, are one of the better ones things in the new law and which will apply new reasons, i.e. conditions regarding the incompatibility of membership in the Council, which will ultimately lead to the new composition of the council electing a new body established by the new law. Otherwise, what have we done? That we don't implement the Law until an unspecified time or that we wait until the mandate of the last member of the Council ends?

STEVAN PAJOVIĆ

In the new provisions, the directive states that a member of the REM Council can be replaced only under pre-prescribed legal conditions. We are introducing new conditions, which were not valid when they were elected for the mandate. The REM should be changed in a legally prescribed procedure. The reasons why you can replace Council members have been expanded. I think REM should have been replaced.

IVANA STEVANOVIC

It was mentioned that REM issues national permits without adequate analysis - REM issues national permits contrary to the law! This REM Council is constantly breaking the Law. During the permit granting process, he is obliged to hold a regular session twice a month - last year he had only four. This REM has the obligation to decide on applications that reach it, and it decided on 28 applications out of 76 received. It's all a violation of the law.

When we talk about REM control mechanisms, in this situation REM does not answer to anyone. The new law proposes to suit anyone even less. In such a way as to regulate so that persons or organizations that submit reports on the behavior of media service providers are treated as someone who may or may not initiate a procedure with the REM. Therefore, the REM can do nothing without any responsibility because the law says that the applicants do not have the status of a party to the proceedings. With this, we have made judicial control of the work of REM impossible, because as applicants, you have no right to defend any of your rights that have been violated in the programs or any general right. In the current year, REM did not impose any measures. Therefore, it is not enough that REM has measures at its disposal, but also that it uses them.

SASA MIRKOVIĆ

Of all the existing REM council members, none meet the criteria to remain in REM, nor could they be elected to that body if these criteria are adopted in the draft law. Elementary logic: why do we pass a law where we praise criteria that we cannot apply until their mandate expires?

Another thing, when we talk about entrusted jobs - if the government insists that REM should remain in the status of entrusted jobs - the question arises why REM did not react to the opportunities provided by the Ministry when the REM Council went on strike on its own initiative a few months ago. Because it does not enforce the existing law and has not yet granted a fifth multiplex license with national coverage? So, if you already insist that the entrusted jobs remain with the Ministry, why has it not been applied so far and is kept as a fuse that can be used to discipline REM at any time when there is a need for it.

We should look at the whole controversy about resetting the Council from another aspect, which is the fact that the draft law on electronic media was presented to us before the beginning of the civil protests, where the prominent demand was to change the members of the REM Council. Something that stood in the strategy suddenly entered the sphere of politicization and that is where the rational arguments that we mention here are already lost and we enter the domain of pure politics. The bottom line is that the acceptance of something in the strategy and the logical solution brought by the new law would be considered as fulfilling one of the demands of the civil protest. And since we know that none of the requirements have been met, why would anyone profit from this and say that this condition is met?

GORDANA KONSTANTINOVIC, lawyer for UNS

The law would be a significant improvement, especially with regard to project co-financing, if we exclude recent interventions. If it doesn't change, one of the good things would be the creation of a unique information platform where a lot of data will be entered that will be important in the co-financing process for project commissions, candidates for commission members and projects. I am personally glad that the provisions on equal status were introduced, which aim to improve the position of journalists and media workers in the part related to the schedule and distribution of working time and the right to be excluded from communications.

ŽELJKO BODROŽIĆ, president of NUNS

The state does not respect us and criminalizes us, but we are obliged to be involved in processes such as the drafting of the Law. Representatives of all relevant media and journalist associations were members of the working group. What happened, however, between the completion of the work and the publication made us extremely angry and caused us not to defend the draft law because it was not the one proposed by the working group.

When you work with people who do not shy away from manipulation, lies and fraud, we can only create parallel institutions, when you come into contact with them you feel like a second-class citizen. As before, things are done in a cabinet because someone can just scribble all your decisions and proposals overnight.

If there is a normal society and government, this law can have - to trivialize - one member. The press is free, but electronic media must be regulated for other reasons. And that these other things are regulated by other laws, such as the Labor Law. But we, as a country in transition, have to standardize something and try to bring society into a democratic state where we will respect each other fairly. We are advocating and looking for a way to satisfy our European partners because we want to be in the process and fight for our rights, but also to define our obligations. We want to help the media sphere so that freedom of expression is unquestionable, but also to be responsible that the spoken word is accurately indicated.

You have a state government that knows that by accepting our demands, i.e. by regulating some things, it loses ground. Free news does not suit this kind of government. Freed public service, free television with national frequencies as well. They can follow and accept all this to a certain level, but they know where the red lines are and they must not let it go because it depends on them staying in power.

Moderator: How do you see this law in the light of the local media? Does it bring any benefits or dangers for the survival of local media?

JOVANKA MAROVIĆ, editor of Glas Šumadija

The previous law was not respected at all in Kragujevac. Of the project co-financing that was not implemented at all in Kragujevac for five years, at one point in 2017-2018. In XNUMX, we had a situation where local media in this city almost did not exist until the famous situation with RTV KG. Last Friday, the decision on privatization was adopted under the urgent procedure, which means that it starts immediately. Last night, the mayor said on the same TV show that the privatization will not be carried out as a matter of urgency. I don't think the local media depends much on what the law says. We all have to do something together to encourage compliance with the legal provisions. Local media have been marginalized under every government, but here it has been perfected. I would like to present a situation that is, in a way, specific to Kragujevac and that depends more than legal solutions on the atmosphere in society, for which not only journalists are responsible, but also the people sitting across from us. For the last year, portals have been opened in Kragujevac that are not registered in the media register, they do not have an imprint, name and surname, we do not know who is behind them, who publishes them and where the money for them comes from. You have no one to sue and no one to turn to. Therefore, the position of local media will depend more on a good atmosphere with the existence of all good legal provisions. Past practice has shown that it does not matter what is written in the law.



FILIP ŠVARM, editor-in-chief of the weekly "Vreme"

There are good solutions in the previous laws as well, but we are all aware that these solutions are not implemented. When it comes to media laws, we have a kind of performance that is primarily a game for the European Union, but it is enough to go to any newsstand and look at the tabloid editions - not to mention the electronic media - and then it will be clear to a person that everything is the opposite. .

When the tragedy happened in "Ribnikar", a large number of journalists from the world and especially from the region poured into Serbia. They were honestly shocked by the situation in our media. I'm not talking about Germans, French, Americans, I'm talking about colleagues with whom we share the same culture and the same language, with whom we shared the country. They say that what they have seen in Serbia when it comes to reporting and the appearance of tabloids, has not existed in such a form anywhere in this area in the last 20 years. But the essence is in the following - it is the attitude of the highest people in power towards the media. Look at Brnabićeva when she starts "flipping" through the media and labeling everyone who is not her like-minded, that is, a propagandist; look at the president of Serbia when he talks about professional journalists and media in Serbia. If you are not under government control, you are a traitorous media.

GORDANA KONSTANTINOVIC

I can say that I am not sure, although I was a regular member of the working group, and I do not know where the member who was delegated to the working group disappeared and how the famous article 39 was created. In the provision of the draft, the article is controversial as you can imagine.

The article enables the state to establish a legal entity (which cannot be a beneficiary of state aid and must not perform activities of general interest) through which the state can be a media publisher, without exclusion to a greater or lesser extent. When the first public hearing was held in Belgrade, it was explained to us that this article was implemented because the Constitution of Serbia guarantees the equality of all forms of property - which is really true - and that someone, I guess, somewhere noticed, perhaps, that the exit of the state from media potentially unconstitutional, what is the provision of the existing law, so this thirty-ninth - which we still don't know what it looks like - is an attempt to correct something. Whether something is constitutional or not and whether it is in accordance with the Constitution is assessed by the Constitutional Court. The explanation is highly debatable because it would mean that the current law on public information and media is not constitutional. If the previous provision is unconstitutional, albeit without a court decision, then the privatization of other media that successfully resist is debatable. Why are you now leaving the media somewhere, and at the same time, you are allowing the state to enter the media in another way? And all these that have been extinguished, disappeared, taken over were not taken over by journalists, but by certain persons in a problem, because we heard at the beginning of the public discussion in Belgrade - that provision of the current law and the previous one from 2006 is problematic.

ŽELJKO BODROŽIĆ

We are trying to do something through dialogue, but I don't know how to talk and negotiate with people who constantly distort facts and relativize things. They said that we are criminals, traitors, that we usurped this, that we receive foreign aid. Their intention is to insert the register of all foreign donations through these gong organizations, as if it were an unknown and a specter, as if the state is not the biggest recipient of these foreign donations and that all projects financed by the European Commission are not so transparent that they make it difficult for us as well, as it is it's a painstaking job because it's a lot of paperwork and requires precise justification of every cent. Those who are from local governments think that it is easy, that you just knock and get money. You don't have to write, or list the receipt.

If the tender conditions are stricter and more transparent, they will reduce the fees through the tender for the co-financing of media projects and will switch to Telekom. Telekom can choose a hundred media companies in Serbia and give each one a million euros. And if you ask why it does that, the state will say that they are a state-owned company that is on the market and they have nothing from the budget, which is true, but you are powerless, they will continue their practice. It's a matter of application.

We heard from the deputy provincial secretary that they do not even have the capacity to conduct competitions according to the current law, and some from local self-governments admit that they do not know how to apply, that they make mistakes when applying and that there are no people. Yesterday, the provincial secretary took women as an example - how last year one was in a position, and now she is on sick leave. I told him: the problem is with Pera, who went on an election campaign or is busy voting, or doesn't have to come to work at all, as is the case with us. So, you can write whatever you want on the paper. We are trying not to be dragged into the battle between Telekom and United Group. Whatever we say about Telekom, they say you are mercenaries of the United Group, you work for Šolak and against your country. No, we also want our state-owned company to work normally and not be subsidized from the budget. But to return to privatization: we have a problem with implementation. When this government passes, we will have a consensus: let's sell Telekom, so that no one disturbs the well of money for their political interests.

Privatization after the 2000s was created in order to get the media out of the hands of politicians who used the media for their own interests, and then on the second step, the privatization agency did not care about the process at all and let the bosses who bought the newspaper because of the building and the like fire them employees, shut down or recompose the medium. Those were some people from DSS and G17 who implemented privatization and who are now in power. Privatization didn't destroy local media, but implementation did.

JOVANKA MAROVIĆ

It is very strange that until 2014 there was a big movement in Kragujevac to transform RTV KG into a public service. The moment the law is adopted, the law should be respected. Here, the Law on Public Information, in all its points, has been violated for 10 years. What appears to be the case - as well as the mayor's message last night - is that these people are being left in the belief that it will remain in the status it is in, and that is the only status in which it cannot remain. Glas Šumadija referred to the law and asked what economic activity that television is engaged in since it is a commercial company. They answered us that according to this and that article of that and that law it exists.

I don't think it's a big loss whatever happens to that television because it no longer works in the public interest. It no longer takes into account the interests of citizens, but the interests of local self-government. There is a slightly different situation when it comes to the attitude of the local government towards the local media - we don't have that kind of problem to reach the interlocutor and to get the mayor's statement on all our questions; if we refer to the Law on Free Access to Information of Public Importance, the local government will respond. Here we had attempts by the authorities to shut down local media by not announcing a competition, that television receives 60 million dinars a year from subsidies, which are also illegal. The message from last night says that the government, if anything depends on the local government, has no intention of changing anything.