Future of B&H Media

Further Ethnic Polarisation of Media?

AIM Sarajevo, 26 November, 1998

In the shadow of haggling of Zagreb and Sarajevo about the Agreement on Special Relations between B&H Federation and the Republic of Croatia, and then the ceremony of signing of this agreement, the proposal of Ante Domazet, president of the Management Board of B&H Television, on transformation of this media into two ethnic channels within the Federation, remained insufficiently explained though announced in public. Despite the fact that the integral text of the proposal had not been presented to the public, media controlled by the ruling Party of Democratic Action (SDA) received it with hostility, the Union of Croat Journalists in B&H (which is just being founded) supported it, while Mirsad Purivatra, director of B&H Television, rejected it, for "professional reasons".

Approximately at the same time, discussion of Zlatko Dizdarevic, editor-in-chief of weekly Svijet (at a two-hour meeting of independent intellectuals of the Circle 99 with Carlos Westendorp, High Representative of the international community in B&H) passed almost completely unnoticed in which he pointed out to the difficult position of independent media and their probably approaching collapse in Bosnia & Herzegovina. This stand was just maliciously recorded by the media controlled by the SDA, which do not share the problems that Dizdarevic spoke about.

These two completely opposite and politically quite different stands are in themselves a good illustration of the current situation the media in B&H are in. Television B&H, which still pretentiously calls itself that, is actually hardly the television station of one quarter of the territory of B&H, but according to the will of its political owners it neither is nor in fact wishes to be the television of the Federation, that is, of its two constituent nations, what this creation is meant to be by the two ethnic parties, least of all of the entire state. Moreover, the unitarian editorial conception is reflected in the principle of outvoting in its organization and program plan, its policy, culture, arts, cultural heritage, religious programs, entertainment, sports and others, in the manner in which not even Serbian hegemonic ideologists in Yugoslavia had used it, which among other contributed to its dissolution.

The answer to this clash of political wills in the Federation are two ethnic channels on which each ethnic group will make its "own" programs, each in its "own" language and each for its "own" spectators; something like the Swiss model, as Domazet suggested. This conception is somewhat more likely to be implemented now when Kresimir Zubak - as member of B&H Presidency in the previous mandate who had already been well under way in negotiations about transformation of TV B&H - had lost in the past elections, so that talks must start all over again. And it is hardly necessary to even say to what extent the current member of the Presidency Ante Jelavic (of the Croat Democratic Community) and his new, completely uninformed team, are competent for the job, especially because Jelavic has a much more pressing problem to take care of in his own party which has seriously been shaken by a crisis for months, not only in the headquarters in Zagreb, but also in the branch in B&H.

Director of B&H Television, Mirsad Purivatra, who is generally believed to have family ties with Izetbegovic, rejected the concept of divided Television according to Domazet's proposal, in defence of professionalism and in the manner already seen in "protests of the trade union and employees of B&H TV". But, ever since Purivatra was appointed a couple of months ago to transform this television station, no visible changes have been introduced, especially not such which would induce citizens of B&H, or at least of the Federation, to perceive this television station as their own.

The international community which is implementing the Dayton accords here and which has either already reorganised or is about to reorganise the army, the police, customs administration, finances, political infrastructure, and should soon reorganise the juduciary, has done little to introduce order in the system of the media, although open and democratised media would accelerate implementation of Dayton agreements. The principle of donations, which in the initial phase, along with good intentions, had real effects, developed the "donation syndrome in B&H", where such a large number of media have sprung up that not even economically more powerful, and more populated and better educated countries would not be able to sustain. Now that it has become aware of this defect in its policy, the international community is mentioning withdrawal which could destroy the already sown seed. Nobody mentions any more the transformation of B&H Television as a media whose channel one should be linked to the Assembly of the Federation, but not according to the current concept of ethnic double authorities, but in accordance with the global political structure reflected by the Assembly, while the other channels would be commercial, and even ethnic, why not, now that constituent nations are mentioned, since one of the foundations of a constituent nation is both language, and freedom, and equal right to access to joint media.

As concerning the catastrophic picture of the future of independent media outlined by Zlatko Dizdarevic, and the responsibility of the international community for it, it should be said that it has no concept for solving the problem of the media, and the resources these media are receiving are becoming more and more scarce, less certain and less regular every day. Party controlled media are receiving money in suitcases, as Dizdarevic said, and it is impossible to compete with them, and the power of their obstruction and even destruction, of the Dayton accords is inexhaustible. Those who are fighting for a civic society and democratic values, which coincides with the project installed here by the international community, are sentenced to die out.

The solution seems obvious: it is necessary to support, for instance, one common TV channel, to organise a news agency, to support one daily and possibly two reviews (a weekly and a biweekly) and in this way break up the monopoly of the media controlled by the ruling parties. By reducing the number of (co)financed media and by increasing power of the reduced number of them, these media could soon head towards self-supporting, which is indeed the fundamental project of the international community: self-supporting peace, self-supporting economy, self-supporting B&H.

Without these fundamental assumptions which result as only natural from the two illustrated examples and the mentioned possible solution, Dayton project of Bosnia & Herzegovina is further eroded. Dividing the media space according to the ethnic principle, or without the concept for its union on professional foundations, the global ethnic division is reinforced. The problem would not have been half that big, if the media space were divided but with the media in B&H on the professional level. But it is becoming or remaining the testing range for continuation of the war but by different means: those of propaganda in the service of the most brutal form of political struggle which we are having in this country.

Zeljko IVANKOVIC

(AIM Sarajevo)