geert lovink on Tue, 11 Dec 2001 00:29:02 +0100 (CET) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
[Nettime-bold] Interview with Veran Matic (B92, Belgrade) in Glas javnosti, 10.12.2001 |
From: <mediawatch@lists.opennet.org> Sent: Monday, December 10, 2001 11:34 PM Subject: Interview with Veran Matic in Glas javnosti, 10.12.2001. Glas javnosti, December 10, 2001 Interview with Veran Matic, Editor in Chief of B92 & ANEM Chairman Tatjana Canak 1. ANEM legal advisors and You personally had more objections to the situation in the media field, which has remained chaotic for the past year despite pledges to regulate it, than to the final draft of the Public Broadcasting Act. What were Your suggestions and proposals to improve the situation in the electronic media inherited from the former regime? Our proposal immediately after October 5 was to grant temporary frequency licences so as to redress injustices done by the Milosevic regime to the independent broadcasters, and thus, create a favourable climate for drafting this extremely complex piece of legislation which particularly today, in the age of technological expansion, is supposed to define media and technology development strategy, i.e., cover a much wider field. We had been aware that catastrophic mistakes could have been made had the law been hastily drafted and rushed through the parliament. I think that the Telecommunications Ministry opted for the worst possible solution - a moratorium on frequency allocation was introduced, even though old injustices had not been previously rectified, thus freezing the inherited state of affairs in the electronic media. Apparently, in terms of legal framework for broadcasters' operations, October 5 did not actually take place for independent electronic media. Some may say that I exaggerate, but the truth is that B92 had been banned immediately before October 5, but despite the ban, a larger territory was covered by our signal than today. At the time, we broadcast our programming in every possible way on a number of frequencies and channels from neighbouring countries and from within our own country in order to contribute as much as possible to the long-awaited changes despite extremely dangerous situation we found ourselves in. To illustrate the point, let just remind ourselves of the incident when our transmitters were mined and blown up in eastern Bosnia. We were changing frequencies which were being jammed persistently, including the satellite ones, by those persons who are, for example, still at the head of the Yugoslav Army. Also, I have not seen those people from the police, who had participated in enforcing repressive measures against the media, being dismissed from their posts. A couple of nights ago a female viewer asked during a phone-in program how come that she could listen to ANEM programs before October 5, but not today anymore. This explains it all. 2. Did you expect that some would be punished, or if not actually punished, at least had their further development checked (frequency licences revoked, etc.)? The least the authorities could have done was to set up an expert commission which would determine how frequency licences and TV channels had been allocated since at issue here are precious national resources. The government should have made a report on the inherited situation in the media, initiated criminal proceedings against those responsible as well as revoked unfair and illegal decisions which had been the basis for establishing monopolies and development of those broadcasters which had ingratiated themselves with the powerful figures from the former regime. Only then, the government should have drafted a strategy of the media sphere development for the next few years and initiated a process of preparing the legislation which would comprehensively regulate the entire media field. Never has a thought of taking revenge on anyone occurred to us. Quite often the people tell us: "You are yourselves to blame since you did not enter TV Pink with a bulldozer. You wouldn't have had any problems today." We have never wanted something like that. What we wanted was an opportunity for B92 to develop as all other media did, and to help democratisation and reforms in such a manner as authentic advocates of democracy. We wanted to help preserve this precious asset - this large number of independent media in a post-communist country. This was an advantage of Serbia in comparison to some other countries because no one had such a large number of independent media at the beginning of the transition process. I did not expect absolute justice, but neither did I expect that a civil-society-oriented minister and antiwar activist would say to me: "Why do you bear a grudge against Pink when it's ours now?" I did not expect that another minister would advise me to erect transmitters going on to say that he would stop the police when they come after us. I did not expect that some people in power would try to persuade us to make a deal with some of those media moguls which would let us have two or three of their channels and a studio in exchange for keeping our mouths shut. I did not expect that someone would attempt to ban TV Pirot for the third time, now that democracy reigns, and I did not expect that only we, the independent media, would observe the moratorium despite its being unfair and unjust to us. We wanted to respect the rules because this was the only way towards the establishing of a rule of law, but what about those broadcasters who had acquired privileges earlier under the former regime. What I least expected was that the authorities would so easily renounce authentic democratic potential of the independent media which could enormously contribute to reaching a consensus on necessary reforms and changes. Thus, those currently in power may not live up to the citizens' expectations raised by those crucial pledges of the new authorities that they would work to the benefit of the common people. 3. Could you explain by specifically drawing a parallel between TV Pink and TV B92 what was happening to the electronic media for the past year? What are the advantages of the former regime media over TV B92, ahead of the upcoming public competition for frequency allocation? When drawing such a parallel one usually comes to a conclusion that TV Pink and TV B92 are in conflict with each other. This is not true. B92 criticises the government's policy towards the media, the practice of granting privileges to some broadcasters and discriminating other electronic media. At the moment, B92 has only one channel for broadcasting its programming and a contract on business and technical co-operation with Genex allowing TV B92 to use their two TV channels. The contract will have expired by March next year and it may not be renewed. This practically means that TV B92 area of coverage would be drastically reduced as B92 now covers only 89 percent of Belgrade area and 40 percent of the Serbian northern province of Vojvodina. TV Pink, however, covers about 90 percent of the whole of Serbia. During the past year, 60 percent of the advertisers' money went to TV Pink. The same is bound to happen in the next year as we will surely lose another year until the new media laws come into effect. At the same time, B92 cannot possibly count on even 1 percent of the total sum spent for advertising on the media market because of its small area of coverage. Therefore, the issue is not only the development of B92 but whether it could survive on the media scene. Then, it may happen that the amount of some broadcaster's capital become a criterion for assessment whether it could be granted national coverage or not. If this were the case, obviously, TV B92 would not stand a chance. The government keeps saying that Pink should be granted a licence for national coverage while B92 is supposed to receive a medal, but not frequency licences. We have neither asked for nor expected to receive a medal given that even Legija, a commander of a special police unit, is given credit for having contributed to the Milosevic ousting from power, while the role of authentic democratic forces is being minimised. But it has never occurred to us that we would be prevented from competing on an equal footing with the former Milosevic's media. At issue is not only B92. Recently one politician asked me the following question: "Why should not TV 5 from Nis, the second largest Serbian city, be granted a licence for national coverage, or at least, more extensive coverage in Serbia?" I replied that this question was for him to answer, not me. The authorities should explain, for example, why TV Palma has much larger area of coverage for more than a year by now, and I presume that nothing will change for another year, than TV 5, a broadcaster which has enormously contributed to bringing about democratic changes? Why do so many broadcasters, which helped strengthen local democratic authorities, at the time when there were no independent electronic media in Belgrade, when they were banned by the former regime, still have to broadcast their programs from inadequate premises, basements and garages, fearing that they would not be granted a frequency licence or TV channel because of their failure to meet technical requirements. There are 40 TV stations in ANEM, and only 11 of them have valid broadcasting licences. TV Pink has more channels than the whole of the Association of Electronic Independent Media, ANEM. We have 64 radio broadcasters - member stations of ANEM, but only 31 have valid broadcasting licences. Such a discrimination introduced by the Milosevic regime still persists, a year after the political changes, and it is quite certain that such a situation will remain unchanged for at least another year. In Novi Sad, TV Most, a broadcaster owned by the Socialist People's Party, SPS, is still operating from the Radio Television Serbia, RTS, premises. At the same time, Radio 021 endeavours to develop a multiethnic radio in keeping with European standards, despite the fact that it has no broadcasting licence. The current state of affairs is insane - on the one hand, we have those broadcasters who would like to see the Public Broadcasting Act adopted as soon as possible: ANEM with over a hundred of its TV and radio stations, Association of Private Electronic Media Spektar with more than 70 stations, RTS with its channels (without transformation into a public service broadcaster, the state radio and TV is bound to fall into ruin), while, on the other hand, you have several broadcasters who have become very close to the new authorities. 4. Do you think that an unusually long period of more than a year was necessary to draft Public Broadcasting Act? Do you actually believe that political games are stalling the process of regulating the media field which has an extremely important political impact? Even if this piece of legislation is now adopted in the parliament, it will take about a year for it to come into full effect, and I am sure that various forms of obstructions are bound to emerge in the process. The problem is that there are no indications of the government's willingness to resolve these problems. You can have the best legislation in the world, but if there is no willingness to apply that law, the state in which a rule of law is still to be established may find dozens of ways to avoid the application of such a legislation. In my view, the government has a problem with all those areas defined as independent or non-governmental. There is a similar animosity towards the independent media and NGOs which also face enormous problems in relation to legal framework for their activities. Certainly, there are other pressing problems so that many do not consider these laws as a priority. But it is also quite clear that there is a gross lack of understanding of the situation in which the independent media and the state broadcaster, RTS, find themselves in. Namely, according to the final draft of the Public Broadcasting Act, RTS is supposed to be transformed into a public service broadcaster. Thus, the government would be deprived of its possibility to influence the work of the state broadcaster. I think that there is no a genuine wish for RTS to become a public service broadcaster, i.e., that the intention is to prolong the agony of the biggest broadcaster and weaken it as much as possible until the broadcasters like Pink take over the former role of RTS as a government's mouthpiece. RTS as a public service broadcaster is a priority in the media field because it possesses an enormous potential for educating and re-educating the citizens, for democratisation, promotion of reforms. It is quite clear that each party involved would like to grab as much media power for its itself as possible by stirring up confusion on the political scene. This certainly would not contribute to the development of objective, unbiased and autonomous media. 5. Would you subscribe to the view that those broadcasters which had come into existence and amassed fortunes during the Milosevic era have by now even further strengthened their positions? Are there any concrete and evident confirmations of such a claim? I have already said something about it. If you have a natural tendency towards servility with respect to those in power, then you are bound to be subservient, especially if the regime stimulates such a servile attitude. Therefore, those obsequious people thrive under such regimes. It does not matter who their masters are and whether their master caused disaster and catastrophe affecting the citizens of several states, whether he was robbing his people, committing acts of violence against his own people or whether such a person presents himself as a democrat. It is interesting that no one has so far audited the TV Pink contracts with RTS during the Milosevic regime. Has someone halted the auditing process of these contracts? Recently, the people from RTS told us that TV Kosava was broadcasting the program using the RTS equipment, including, most probably, a transmitter and a channel belonging to the state broadcaster. I have not seen a single official document on this issue. Your newspaper wrote at great length about criminal acts being committed while establishing this TV broadcaster. Despite this, apparently, it occurred to no one to investigate the whole matter and reveal to the public how the former owner, Marija Milosevic, daughter of the Yugoslav ex-president, could be paid off for selling this television. 6. Milosevic was in the habit of decorating those who supported him. Did you expect at least some confirmation of your long-lasting struggle against him, or perhaps, you are not at all surprised by the Prime Minister's cynical statement about a medal to B92 for past merits? On returning to our own premises, our own company, after several-month-long ban and broadcasts from neighbouring countries, we found debts incurred by the regime's people headed by Aleksandar Nikacevic who had taken over B92 from us. The debts amounted to over 200,000 DEM. Despite this, we endeavoured to pay the debts to social security funds for all the B92 employees as if we had never been banned. We could not even get a discount or allowances for this process, let alone consider a possibility of these debts being written off in recognition of the sacrifices made by those who had refused to cooperate with the Milosevic's regime and instead supported the process of strengthening the democratic forces. When I realised that we will have to pay our debts incurred by Milosevic's henchmen, it was quite clear to me that we will have to continue to pay the price of being independent and of our insistence on professionalism. Unfortunately, quite often, even the bravery of those who had given their lives for democracy in the struggle against the Milosevic's regime has not been recognised. My greatest satisfaction, however, would be if I saw the rule of law and justice taking root in our country as well as the process of redressing injustices which would satisfy those who had been deprived of their rights under former regime. The greatest recognition for me is the fact that there is no revolt on B92 programme on account of our precarious and difficult position. Even under these most difficult circumstances, we have managed to preserve objectivity and professionalism in our work. 7. At a gathering of the professionals from the electronic media, Zeljko Mitrovic, director of TV Pink, told Bojana Lekic when she was still a member of TV B92 team: "We are the same kind, let's make a deal." And she retorted: "We are not the same kind because if it had been so, none of this would have happened".). Do you think that the citizen Z.M. succeeded in persuading anyone that his perverse statement holds water? I think one gains the impression that the gentleman in question has fitted more easily into the new system. Is it not an ancient and banal story about minding one's own business? I believe that your concrete and precise question implies an equally concrete and precise answer. I would only go on to say that our profession cannot put up with fitting into any system or establishment. It must be always critical of the new system, of the new order. The reason for the position the independent journalism finds itself in today lies precisely in this critical stance of a journalist which is a prerequisite for any progress. 8. Where does, in your view, lie a solution for improving the position of the independent electronic media before the Public Broadcasting Act comes into effect? To resolve this pressing problem, all those media, whose applications for frequencies had been flatly rejected in Milosevic's public competitions despite complete necessary documentation they had submitted, should be granted temporary broadcasting licences as well as a temporary licence for extending the B92 area of coverage in Serbia which should be valid until the announcement of the results of the next public competition for frequency allocation. Tatjana Canak _______________________________________________ Nettime-bold mailing list Nettime-bold@nettime.org http://amsterdam.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold