WAR IN THE MEDIA OF WAR FOR THE MEDIA?
AIM Sarajevo, July 19, 1996
Recent scandal in Sarajevo concernind the media, when popular Vecernje novine one day did not appear in the streets, ceased to be a scandal even before it became one. Vecernje novine could not avoid the disease all independent media suffer from. Critical financial situation caused piling up of debts in the printing works "Oko" which is believed to hold the monopoly over printing in Sarajevo, and the affair ended up in a scandal - the newspaper was not printed due to the debt amounting to more than 140 thousand German marks. Apart from claiming that the debt is highly questionable and that it deserves a serious analysis, the editorial staff of the journal believe that the refusal to print their paper is also part of political pressure aimed at complete closing down of Vecernje novine, after which it would be easier for the "competent" authorities (and everyone knows that this in fact the omnipotent Party of Democratic Action) to get rid of the much more powerful and world more famous Oslobodjenje which also owes a considerable sum of money to the same (once its own) printing works.
After a day of hubbub, protests, public declarations, accusations and counter-accusations, Vecernje novine continued to be printed again regularly, without anyone having found out how the dispute with the printing works was settled, whether the debts were paid (how and with whose oney) and who mediated in the affair. It is, of course, a good thing that Vecernje are published again, but it is impossible to believe that the serious financial crisis could have been resolved overnight, and even less that money was the real reason. It would, indeed, be highly professional if the editorial staff, having shared all the problems with the readers, informed them how it resolved the dispute, without revealing any of its business secrets along the way.
However, the scandal with Vecernje novine was just a tiny detail from a large-scale and a long time ago initiated "battle for the media" which is nowadays, in the red-hot pre-election atmosphere of B&H, waged by literally everybody who has anything to do with the elections, even the media themselves. Perhaps everything that is happening concerning them is not interconnected, but it all nevertheless ends in a single, important and joint fact - that the forthcoming elections are not just a political competition, but largely that of the media as well.
Moreover, before it was even known that the elections would be scheduled and what they would be like, in international centres of decision-making on implementation of the Dayton Accords it was known from the very beginning that a significant role would be given to the media. The local media had been the least aware of it, but the state agencies of RB&H were not much better informed about it either (since little is known about the situation in Republika Srpska), which are in charge of at least registration and formal approval of operation of the media, and when speaking of those most attractive ones, the electronic media, of distribution of channels.
A real turmoil in the media space began when it was made public that the international community would strongly support development of independent media in B&H, which was a direct declaration that state media were controlled by the ruling parties and that, without major transformation of the programs and ideology, they cannot be trusted to participate in the election activities correctly, that is that all the political parties would be equally treated by them. When it was, furthermore, publicized that investment of fantastic 25 million dollars would be provided for development of these independent media, it did not stir up the spirits in the official government and state media. One could say that it caused much more commotion among the independent media themselves. Carl Bildt, the man responsible to install an independent TV network in the name of the international community, immediately made it quite clear what the objective of this large investment was. In the pre-election competition and then after the elections, this TV network is intended to be a rival to the existing state RTV B&H and, indeed, to national television in Republika Srpska and in the space controlled by the Croat Defence Council (HVO), that is the Croat Democratic Community (HDZ). A general conflict broke out concerning the very conception of this project.
Majority of competent (better to say, interested) subjects believed that this money should be invested in the already existing independent television stations, in order to reinforce them technically, financially and professionally and qualify them for competition with the state and the national media. Carl Bildt, however, insisted on a new network, soon christened "Bildt's TV", which was expected to achieve a bigger effect than if the planned money were spent on the assistance to the existing numerous "small, insufficiently professional and not authoritative media". Along with this stance, negative reactions of the local public (and especially of independent media) were caused by the assessment that the existing independent TVv stations were "more or less amateurish in format" and that they "cannot cope as equal partners with the RTV network supported by the state B&H".
Many questions were hidden behind the conflict of concepts. Will "Bildt's TV" grab the best journalists and technical personnel and simply devastate the existing stations? Will the information and image of B&H reality be created by people who are outside the epicentre of developments? Does not such international "incursion" into B&H media space without taking heed of the authority, competences and legal rights of the state, conceal the risk of installing political and ideological ideas contrary to interests of integrative trends and objectives in (the present and the future) B&H? These and many other accusations on account of Carl Bildt and intentions of the international community are not at all harmless. But, at the same time, it was easy to discern the local unconcealed, partial, selfish, rivalry ideas of the independent media whose prospects of development were at stake. Almost all recognized in Bildt's investment an opportunity for themselves to get their own separate "piece of cake", to reinforce their own technical and financial positions and preserve their real or just imagined independence and "identity". In this, it must be admitted, they won sympathies of the domestic public and many opposition political parties.
The state RTV B&H did not hesitate to strongly condemn the very idea to spend all that money on small and technically and professionally inadequate studios, and not to enable the most powerful media to preserve its monopolistic position by distribution of its channels and the right to control them. Bildt's office manifested much more patience than the keen domicile interested media. The initial idea did undergo certain transformation, but it remains unclarified whether the agitated media public was actually intentionally and profoundly just being tested by formulation of this final, already effectuated project. Because the final idea is to establish a network of five independent TV studios called TVIN (International Network). Regardless of what the arguments, pressure or possible blackmail stood behind the process of establishing this company, but also what fears existed inside the media, the fact remains that Carl Bildt in fact did not establish "Bildt's TV" at all. It was established by RTV Hayatt, TV Zetel, RTV Tuzla, RTV Mostar and NTV Studio 99. The intention is for the other similar stations from both the territory of the Serb entity and that of the so-called Herzeg-Bosna to join them when they see fit. United independent media all at once and without hesitation agreed about the fundamental stance (publicized in a joint statement) that they were uniting "in order to improve and develop pluralist, professional and multicultural media, necessary for development of democracy in B&H".
Will it be of any use?
The new TV network was strongly opposed by Amila Omersoftic, acting director of RTV B&H who pulled a store of "arguments" ranging from current laws which did not permit foundation of media with foreign capital to the allegation that it was an open attack on the concept of development of state RTV which offered opportunity to all who were interested. To a threat that the state would not allow setting up of transmitters for the new TV network, a counter-argument arrived from Bildt's office: transmitters would be set up within IFOR camps. And to Mrs. Omersoftic's attacks, editorial office of TVIN answers that "Amila Omersoftic cannot stand any competition", nor does she understand provisions of the Dayton Accords which advocate pluralism of media.
What will bercome of the media in the remaining territory of B&H remains to be seen, but it is quite certain that if they wish to enter the race, and even to exist at all, they will have to abide by the idea according to which the entire territory of B&H will have to be covered by the picture in the media (or at least most of it), which is the only way to give political pluralism a chance in pluralism of the media, that is, to provide objective information assessible to all the inhabitants of B&H.
But, whether the new TV network TVIN will sucessfully carry out its job also remains to be seen. The most sensitive question which is at the moment pushed aside for tactical reasons, but which individual stations members of TVIN cannot forget - whether they will preserve their individuality and their identity within the corporation - will depend solely on the fact whether they will participate in the joint program with their best individual programs.
If along with everything else, one takes into account the fact that the new Free Elections Radio Network (FERN) has already started operation, organized in cooperation of the foreign Ministry of FB&H and OSCE Mission in B&H, which will be financed by the Swiss Government, it is clear that the war in the media for free elections in B&H cannot be separated from the "war for the media". Is there any system in this mutual dualism of interests or not, does not really matter as whether there will be any use of all this commotion in the media, that is whether political parties will really be equal in the election campaign and whether the citizens of B&H will be honestly informed.
Is this a war of the media or a war for the media? It seems that there is a little bit of both, but there is also the third element in the game as well - that everybody is acting against everybody else.
SLAVKO SANTIC