Special Reports -> Bosnia and Herzegovina
Media and Ethics in B&H
POSITIVE, BUT SLOW MOVES
18.07.2005: Mirela Čamo i Radenko Udovičić
Compared to its neighbors, Bosnia-Herzegovina has a solid legislative framework within which the media operate. The Communications Regulatory Agency (CRA) is responsible for radio and TV stations and the entire communications sector at state level. CRA issues licenses to broadcasters and monitors adherence to the Broadcast Code of Practice. It focuses on the aspect of programming contents and applies more complex criteria to public broadcasters, in light of their position and funding. The catalogue of possible sanctions for violation of the CRA Code of Practice ranges from a written warning, through issuance of fines, to withdrawal of license, i.e. shutting down media outlets.
The print media in BiH are left to the concept of self-regulation. It had originally been planned that the Independent Media Commission (IMC), the predecessor of today’s CRA, would also be responsible for the press, but what prevailed was the stand of international representatives based on European, most of all British, experiences, that the press in BiH should be left to self-regulation. This is a dominant stand in the international media community, according to which broadcasters use frequency resources, a public commodity, and therefore institutional (legislative) regulation under stricter criteria is necessary for them. In this regard, BiH is the first country in the region to establish a self-regulatory body called Press Council, composed of representatives of the profession and non-governmental sector, civil society and citizens. For a long time the Council was headed by a foreigner (from Great Britain), Robert Pinker, but in April 2005 a local man was chosen as head, ending the international protectorate in one more media sphere. Namely, the Communications Regulatory Agency, which had been headed by foreigners for a long time, has been entirely composed of local people for the third year now and it seems it is continuing operations successfully. However, the future of the Press Council, since it does not dispose of repressive measures, is still questionable. Its operations are based on adherence to the Press Code, which is mostly a compilation of existing codes of ethics, with certain paragraphs built in that suit the specific organization of post-Dayton B&H. The Press Council became operational two years ago, but its effects and range have been very modest. To recall, the very term media self-regulation suggests lack of any legislation or force. However, in the environment of a country which is like a castle in the air, with acultural traditions, disturbed values, split consciousness and identity, strong animosity, buried in ethno-nationalism and the past, overnight and showy religiousness, and traditional irresponsibility and sloppiness of people in the region, the concept of self-regulation simply cannot work. Therefore, it should not be surprising that broadcasters in B&H are at a somewhat higher professional level than the print media, particularly with regard to journalistic ethics. Fearing Regulatory Agency penalties, radio and TV stations refrain from using hate speech, or emphasizing just “their (political, ethnic, economic…) side,” and also from various other methods of manipulation. On the other hand, a part of the newspapers have been waging real media wars against those with different opinions, constantly generating new crises and new enemies. The worst that can happen to them is someone suing them for defamation, in a long civil court case, because defamation in B&H has been completely decriminalized, also as a result of international protectorate.
With the aim of providing a reliable picture of the situation in the B&H media, the sample was divided by media type and seat. In light of the specific social and political situation in Bosnia-Herzegovina and its ethnic division, journalists and editors from different parts of B&H were interviewed. In the Federation of B&H, journalists from the following media outlets were interviewed: FTV, OBN, NTV Hayat and TV SA, TV Tuzla and in Croat majority populated areas HTV Oskar C. Among radio stations: BH Radio 1 (BHR 1), Radio Federation BH, Radio Stari Grad (RSG), from Sarajevo, Tuzla Canton radio, and Bihac radio, and in Croat majority populated areas Radio Postaja Mostar. Among print media, the following dailies were included in the survey: Dnevni Avaz and Oslobodjenje, as well as the weeklies Slobodna Bosna, Dani, and Azra. In Croat majority populated areas, a journalist of the Mostar-based Dnevni List was interviewed. In the Republika Srpska, the following media outlets were encompassed: TV – RTRS, Alternativna TV, Arena, and Pink Bosnia-Herzegovina; radio stations: Nes Radio, BIG Banja Luka, RTRS, Pan Radio; among print media: dailies Nezavisne Novine and Glas Srpske, and weeklies Novi Reporter and Patriot.
Research carried out by Media Plan Institute, in the framework of the Belgrade Media Center project “Media and Ethics,” in which 30 journalists from all over Bosnia-Herzegovina were questioned through in-depth interviews, confirms numerous stumbling points for journalists in the difficult period of transition. Still, journalists’ efforts to respond to professional tasks and principles are encouraging. Awareness exists, but stumbling is still evident.
Conglomerate of pressure
Interviews with journalists started with a question on whether, in addition to being journalists, they had also done other work, primarily in the area of politics and economy. B&H journalists mention much more often cases of journalists from media outlets moving to some other positions, in various governmental and non-governmental institutions. The most frequent reason for leaving the profession is a higher salary because it is very hard to live off journalistic work. Most of them do not know of any cases of abuse of previous positions for better or more extensive reporting work, but at the same time they admit that journalists who moved from the media to other positions have found it easier to deliver information from their new organization to their former media outlet and often serve as a source of information for that outlet. What helps them is acquaintance and friendship with former colleagues.
However, a few said there were a lot of political party members, i.e. political activists, who work in the media in this country and use the media as a means of propagating a certain political orientation. “I know people who are engaged in the media, but at the same time they are engaged in a political party. They push through information, or suppress it, depending on the need of that particular political option because they are more devoted to the party than the media outlet they work for,” says a journalist from Sarajevo. It seems that these situations, namely abuse of employment in media with the aim of propagating one’s own political orientation, are somewhat more common in the Croat majority part of the B&H Federation than in other parts of B&H. The names that most often stand out in this regard are the editor Veselko Cerkez from Hrvatski Radio Mostar, Zoran Kresic from HTV Mostar, Ivana Kristic from Radio Herceg Bosna, the controversial journalist Smiljko Sagolj… According to interviewed journalists’ allegations, they have all worked in their respective media outlets, directly or indirectly, for certain political parties, while at the same time they were better paid than politically uninvolved journalists. However, examples such as these are present in other parts of B&H as well. An example that stands out is that of Dika Bejdic; according to the allegation of one of the interviewed journalists, she was working at the same time as a free-lancer for the daily Oslobodjenje and information advisor to the head of Bihac municipality. Still, according to the information received, these cases mostly concern editors and directors of media outlets, who are “untouchable,” and whose ethics “no one dares to question.” In certain media outlets, rules and regulations have been set down for such cases: “A man who wants, during an election campaign or something similar, to work as a spokesman or to be engaged on any other basis, must have the consent of the general director and, in line with regulations, must freeze his status in the news and political program,” said a journalist from Mostar. It is debatable how much these rules are respected and how many media outlets even have them. However, even more problematic is this whole situation of having someone, even with the director’s consent, going to do a job in an election campaign, and after that returning to the media outlet. Here we have a combination of public relations, which is done for a client, and journalism, which is supposed to work for the public. Even when these two things are not done at the same time, to a rational viewer, listener or reader, such a journalist does not inspire trust.
Journalists’ influence on the passing of decisions by political parties or public institutions can be divided into two categories. The first consists of articles and media contents, whose aim is to create a sort of public pressure. However, journalists also mention informal conversations, through which journalists try to suggest their own opinions and proposals. These conversations are a relatively common attempt of journalists to positively affect happenings in the country. However, most of them claim that they do not know how significant their advice and suggestions have been. The example of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which organizes regular informal meetings with journalists, is isolated. One of the interviewed journalists in Sarajevo mentions the minister of foreign affairs as a person who listens to and partly accepts the advice of journalists, who represent a link to the public.
Although journalists admit less often that they have influence through media, continued publication of media contents certainly influences different public subjects, as well as public opinion in general. In isolated examples journalists admit that they consciously try to create public pressure. Such pressure, for example, has been exerted by HTV Mostar; through its media contents, it has often put direct and indirect pressure on the political parties to vote in the Canton Assembly in favor of adopting a budget for paying salaries to employees in budget institutions, one of which is HTV Mostar itself. In this case, media influence was not aimed only at bringing about positive social changes; the aim was partly its own benefit. Journalists speak more often about influences of this kind, justifying them with an attempt to improve the situation in the country, better inform the public, etc. For example, a journalist from a Bijeljina radio station admits: “This was usually related to some kind of possibility to create public pressure through the media, to bring about certain decisions. But I must say that these decisions were nothing major, at state level. If I was covering a trial, if I was investigating something, if I saw there was a danger of a case being hushed up, of a culprit going unpunished, I would directly say: ‘You know what, if this doesn’t happen, I’ll raise the entire press.’ Exposing a story resulted in the story entering court procedure…” I think we influenced the law to be abided by, at least occasionally, and some things in institutions to be regulated more fairly than they would otherwise. Perhaps it’s a small percentage, but we have managed to reduce the level of corruption.”
Still, journalists agree that political parties’ influence on journalists, and thus on public opinion, is much more common and efficient than vice versa. B&H political parties, through informal meetings and influence, even direct pressure and blackmail, manipulate journalists and the media in general. Mediation among political actors in B&H media is mostly present in the form of moderating talks among opposite political options and publicizing their stands in the same item. Such conduct on the part of journalists is particularly present during election campaigns, in order to achieve balance and give everyone an equal opportunity for media support. The mediation effect in these cases is not especially strong, although some journalists believe that in this way they enable people with different political orientations to come together, discuss a particular issue and find a common solution. And, of course, to give the public an objective view of the situation and political stands. In the Sarajevo weekly political magazines Dani and Slobodna Bosna, there have been examples of more direct and efficient mediation. They organized reconciliation of political actors in magazine premises, and through articles and informal pressure, according to journalists’ opinion, the Alliance for Democratic Change was formed on the eve of the 2000 elections.
Editors’ and owners’ influence on how journalists report, select issues and take a stand are present the B&H media. Its character is mostly political, in the case of Banja Luka media or Mostar broadcasters. Strong political orientation of editors and/or owners puts major pressure on journalists and many of them have had to leave their jobs for that reason. In some cases, dismissal was an automatic consequence for publishing disputed media content, but journalists themselves have also resigned as a result of censorship and changes in content made by editors. Interviewed journalists cited HTV Mostar, Radio Postaja Mostar, the public RTRS and FTV, Glas Srpske, Prst, Patriot, RTV Tuzla, Radio Soli from Tuzla, Dnevni Avaz, and Oslobodjenje. At the same time, this is a rare issue for which interviewed journalists gave more examples from other media than their own. According to the journalists, due to strong political orientation of media, which is clear and evident even to viewers, there is resistance on the part of public figures towards certain media outlets. FTV was mentioned as an example: for quite a while now, its guests do not want to be Sulejman Tihic, B&H Presidency member; Borislav Paravac, B&H Presidency chairman; Paddy Ashdown, High Representative to B&H. However, it should also be mentioned that there are also cases when journalists themselves are politically oriented and editors censor them because they believe political, and even nationalistic, ideas cannot be propagated through the media.
Journalists do not consider economic pressure to be disputable from an ethical point of view to such a degree as political pressure. Still, in many media outlets there is an unwritten rule that they do not publish negative contents about sponsors, although there are issues and happenings that should be covered, because one must also think of the outlet’s survival and the fact that the ‘culprit’ of certain happenings is actually paying journalists. Some journalists even believe that editors and journalists often unconsciously yield under their financiers’ indirect pressure. As an example of strong and wide-spread economic pressure, one of the interviewed journalists cites Aluminij company from Mostar: “This company ‘rules’ the media community in Herzegovina. It is the financier of ‘suitable’ media to a great degree. If some journalist happens to mention Aluminij in a negative context or simply makes an item that doesn’t suit it, the financial tap is turned off.” During research, the only reported example of opposing economic interest of media goes back as far as 1998. A journalist from a private TV in Sarajevo cited the example of the electricity company Elektroprivreda, the most powerful state-run company in B&H. “When we criticized them for good reason, we lost funding from that organization. What Elektroprivreda was doing was a drastic example, and we couldn’t remain silent,” says he and adds that journalists, despite this, persevered in their criticism.
Editors and sponsors are usually those who suggest what journalists should write about and how. Still, generally speaking, such cases are relatively few in number, but the percentage of journalists who do not give in to such suggestions is also low. On the other hand, editors’ professional suggestions are something that journalists, at least according to interview results, accept and consider necessary in journalistic work. Journalists are open to them, as well as to changes in their original media contents as a result of compromise aimed at improving their quality.
Several journalists reported more or less anonymous threats, coming by telephone, mail or email. Most of them do not heed such threats and even publish them in their media outlets, informing the public about the pressure. They take this risk, naturally, only when they have strong and trustworthy data on what they are publishing. Threats usually come from politicians and businessmen, and sometimes even from unnamed groups of citizens. Journalists mostly believe that threats are not “dangerous” and do not react much to them. A case that stands out was when one media outlet threatened another, i.e. a journalist threatened a journalist. Still, some threats, usually made by criminal groups, are very dangerous and threatening, and journalists think that judicial bodies do not react adequately. Passive conduct on the part of police and judiciary suggests that they may have been urged not to do anything concerning this, said some of the interviewed journalists.
Dissatisfied reactions to published or broadcast media contents are an everyday occurrence for B&H journalists and media. According to journalists’ allegations, everyone reacts and complains, starting from ordinary citizens, through companies, governmental and non-governmental institutions, to the Communications Regulatory Agency. Reactions are diverse: from expressing verbal dissatisfaction, writing denials, filing lawsuits, to serious threats. It should be mentioned that reactions are not always direct, but it is easy to assume who is behind them. Political figures and well-known businessmen are most inclined to indirect reactions. Journalists react differently depending on the case. In most cases, they ignore the expressed dissatisfaction when they are sure the published information is true. If a denial shows that the initial contents were untrue or incomplete, the objection is accepted and effort is made to remedy it.
Attempts of bribery are also present, such as in a case when the Rector of the University of Banja Luka offered the owner of Nezavisne Novine Zeljko Kopanja “a lot so that he would not publish a series of articles on criminal activities in this institution.” There are not many open threats and direct danger, but from time to time they are present. It seems that Dani and Slobodna Bosna again bear the biggest brunt of these threats, although other outlets are also sometimes subject to them. The example of Slobodna Bosna stands out, whose editor Senad Avdic has even been beaten up and the outlet has often suffered break-ins in their offices, thefts, etc. Slobodna Bosna, despite direct danger to its journalists, tries to resist such pressure. However, there have been examples when journalists, fearing for their lives, published untrue material. One of the interviewed journalists declined to give names, but he did give the following example: “I know about colleagues from the bureau of a daily newspaper in Mostar, where a criminal broke in and demanded that a journalist write a denial of an article. He even gave him photographs and ordered him to publish them in the newspaper, or anything could happen. And tomorrow, this appeared in the paper, both the photographs and the denial.” Examples such as this one, fortunately, are few, but it is a fact that today’s B&H journalists are faced with different forms of pressure and threats and that the media, in addition to editorial, also have this kind of censorship. The role of editors in such situations is different. Sometimes the editor is the person who makes threats, and in light of his or her position in the outlet, such threats have the strongest effect. Sometimes editors are victims, such as Senad Avdic, but there are also many cases of editors pulling back and “leaving the journalist unprotected,” said the interviewed journalists. Hence, how much influence threats and reactions will have depends to a great degree on editors.
Election campaign – seed-plot for unprofessional journalism
Analyses of media coverage of election campaigns, done by Media Plan Institute, showed that the most important print media to a great degree expressed political sympathies and inclination towards certain political options, parties or party leaders, or were waging campaigns to disqualify those who did not suit them. Most newspapers and magazines apply the form of commentary, which is used to draw attention to problems, to criticize, to commend, even to attack a certain figure. However, formally looking, commentaries, especially if they are frequent in the same direction, result in profiling readers. In addition to this genre, unprofessionally interpreted reports aimed against certain parties were evident. Selective presentation of information was used, as well as carrying articles from other media which correspond to the particular newspaper’s political concept, and using interviews in such a way as to provoke answers aimed at criticizing or even discrediting certain options or persons (which the particular paper dislikes), instead of promoting the option represented by the subject of the interview. Hence, newspapers seemed to have a mission to criticize or even present certain parties in a pronouncedly negative light more than they promoted or had a positive attitude to certain parties. Of course, one should not neglect the so-called indirect effect here either – if you strongly criticize one party, by analogy it turns out that you are sending the readership a positive signal about the competing party.
Responding to a question on potential political party bias in media coverage, interviewed journalists claim there are many such cases, but they deny their own outlets’ participation. Journalists consider the publishing of unverified information or details from party figures’ private lives to be unethical, which is always the case in the B&H media during election campaigns. For example, they mention the Dnevni Avaz attitude to Zlatko Lagumdzija, president of the Social-Democratic Party of B&H who sued the paper over this a number of times, as a textbook example of lack of professionalism.
Political parties often send media outlets questionable data about their rivals and even the international community resorts to this when it wants to remove certain officials, claim some of the interviewed journalists. This is mostly related to political conflicts via the media. How much a media outlet becomes a mediator in these extremely unethical conflicts depends on the particular outlet and its politicization. Abuse of information is present more often than its suppression. If a political party supported by an outlet does something questionable, often the outlet does not publish such contents, but it does publish their denial. This leads to absurd situations: an outlet denies something that it never wrote about. Journalists believe that along with Dnevni Avaz, lately also FTV, Oslobodjenje, and Slobodna Bosna have yielded to such influences, and in the Republika Srpska the RTRS, Nezavisne Novine, Reporter, Patriot and TV BN. It also happens that a journalist does not carry all information from a press conference or some other election event, but this is primarily due to lack of time and/or media space. It seems that journalists themselves are quite principled in relation to ethics when it comes to “election battles,” but under the influence of editors and owners they sometimes have to violate their own principles in order to keep their jobs.
Some journalists admit that they sometimes keep a trump up their sleeve. One of the interviewed journalists said: “Once, for example, I knew that a local politician was accused of fraud and I didn’t report it although I had the opportunity. Of course, the time came when this man arrived in the studio to talk about his platform for improving citizens’ lives if they voted for him. When I asked him about the fraud accusation, I was sorry that we weren’t on television at that moment. He went red in the face and started stuttering…he simply hadn’t expected it. These are the moments that a journalist enjoys.”
Still, based on the interviews, it seems that the biggest part of both journalists and editors try to work professionally, without putting forward their political orientation. Even if there is a conflict of opinion, they try to reach a compromise that will primarily satisfy professional criteria, not ideological. However, a problem appears in media that are distinctly politically colored. Journalists’ reactions to imposed editorial pressure are different. A part of them make a compromise and try to cover their own stands, while others leave their newsrooms and search for conditions in which they will be able to do journalistic work freely and professionally. It is interesting that interviewed journalists from media that are considered distinctly politically colored mostly speak about compromise solutions reached in talks with colleagues and editors. It is justified to assume that those who survive in these outlets are mostly supporters of the same political orientation and that conflicts of opinion are not as frequent as in other media.
According to the majority of the interviewed journalists, everyone has an equal opportunity to express their views, except in several most pronouncedly politically oriented newsrooms. In outlets such as Dnevni Avaz, Slobodna Bosna, FTV, Radio Postaja Mostar or HTV Mostar, extremely dominant editors, sponsors and/or owners prevent equal acceptance of views regardless of whether they concern journalists themselves or views expressed by people in articles and items. Namely, journalists are instructed to make so-called negative selection of information or footage.
Journalists do not have a united stand on political party press releases. A part of them maintain that the Defamation Act clearly specifies that journalists are also responsible for truthfulness of allegations, whether they are made in the form of a press release, statement or stand. Although there are many political parties and each one issues many press releases, journalists must check them. Another part of interviewees believes that only negative contents or contents that may provoke incidents related to other people or organizations need to be verified. And finally, a third group maintains that responsibility lies solely on those issuing the press release. They publish them as they get them, and they relieve themselves of responsibility by clearly stating the source. As authors of this analysis, it is our duty to say that this approach is wrong. The Regulatory Agency has on several occasions penalized electronic media for broadcasting press releases that instigate ethnic hatred or mislead the audience. Therefore, journalists must have a good ability to assess when, how and in what way to broadcast press releases.
B&H journalists are not denied the freedom and opportunity to react if they do not agree with contents published in their own media. Exchange of opinion among colleagues and giving professional advice is very common and usually happens in friendly conversations. Most outlets, especially public services, have editorial and newsroom boards, which are organized precisely with the aim of exchanging opinions and suggestions on selection and treatment of media issues. Journalists are sometimes dissatisfied that their suggestions are not accepted, but they are aware that majority opinion is more dominant. In only three isolated cases (broadcasters from Banja Luka and Mostar), it was reported that journalists dare not express their disagreement for fear of being fired as a consequence. Overall analysis shows that there were many more such examples in the past, but they have been decreasing over the past years, which suggests that journalistic freedom of expression is increasing.
Journalists and money
Most of the interviewed journalists have done commercial items and see nothing disputable in that. Since these items are signed as “PR material” or “hired space” and since they are clearly separated from non-commercial contents, journalists believe this does not violate journalistic ethics. True, the interviews showed that some of them do not want to do commercial items, but only because they do not consider it “real journalism.” However, they are united in the assessment that it is normal for journalists to do this because most of them need additional pay or because commercial items are part of their job description. Journalistic work is very poorly paid and most B&H journalists cannot support themselves solely off journalism. For this reason, journalists doing additional work in the most diverse fields is a very common and generally accepted phenomenon. There is an interesting case of a journalist who is ready to do promotional programs for non-governmental institutions for free if he supports the same idea: “…if they have a good idea, such as civil military service or any other good initiative, which is democratic, I will be glad to support it, but I won’t ask for a counter-favor or something like that,” says a Sarajevo journalist with 12 years of experience.
B&H media try to clearly separate commercial from non-commercial contents. However, this is not always simple. Inexperienced journalists often unconsciously circulate classical promotion content, which they sign as their own. In some media, the following situations happen: “There are frequent examples of automobile showrooms or banks opening, which is actually propaganda, i.e. marketing, but it sometimes happens that we broadcast the item in the news program in the form of a journalistic story for the simple reason that it was paid for.” (Mostar, TV).
Although journalistic work is poorly paid, statements such as this one are common: “I know that I was offered to do an interview with a representative of a company that makes coffee, which will additionally be paid just to me, and which will be published in the newspaper as part of its informational contents. However, I could not accept the offer because it clashes with my moral principles.” (Sarajevo, weekly newspaper)
Journalists agree that marketing agencies and marketing departments in media outlets deal with advertising in media. There are isolated examples in media of “strong dictatorship of the editor” in the marketing field and in these cases, it is mostly editors who deal with preparation, organization and realization of marketing. A journalist even mentioned that this is legally inadmissible because the Communications Regulatory Agency prohibits the appearance of the same voice, for instance in the news program and a commercial advertisement. Another kind of research would be needed to check whether this regulation is adhered to. Concealed advertising is often accidental and unconscious, which one of the interviewed journalists explains in the following way: “It happens to everyone – concealed advertising – I claim this with full responsibility, but with the explanation that we are often not even aware what gaffes we make when using footage to accompany a story. For example, a B&H Presidency session, if you look at the outside details, details of Sarajevo; at every corner there are things lurking which can be understood as political or economic advertising (posters, products, politicians taking a walk), which our camera really catches accidentally. How can you later clear yourself and say that it was accidental and that you did not deliberately show Zlatko Lagumdzija taking a walk in the city while you were talking about a Presidency session or a billboard with a Coca-Cola advertisement?” (Sarajevo, private TV).
Receiving small gifts, such as souvenirs, cigarette lighters, pens, umbrellas and similar small things, even going to dinner or on a promotional trip, is a common, everyday, and even normal phenomenon for B&H journalists. The majority of journalists maintain that this is an everyday occurrence in their job and therefore does not affect journalistic reporting. One of them explains it in the following way: “What’s bad in Tuzla Canton Government is bad, and what’s good is good, regardless of how many pens and cigarette lighters they give us at the New Year’s Eve press conference. And we will report about these things objectively.” (Tuzla, radio). Still, several maintain that bigger gifts, journeys or visits are sometimes a form of concealed bribery of journalists. These things are often discussed, but they usually cannot be proven and constitute speculation. There is an interesting and unusual example of journalists being bribed by an editor: “For instance, our editor, in order to ‘reward you,’ sends you to a BH Telecom press conference because he knows you will get a mobile telephone card or some other gift.” (Sarajevo, radio). But the general conclusion is that these are usually symbolic signs of courtesy which do not affect journalistic objectivity.
PR material, and less commonly photographs, are mostly used by journalists as a source of information in creating their own reports. Some disputed data from such material is checked before publication and assessing what could be disputed depends on editors’ and journalists’ previous knowledge on the subject. Journalists maintain that it usually happens in “other” media that young, inexperienced or lazy journalists just copy a press release. Even absurd situations have been known to happen, when even typing errors have been copied. Journalists draw attention to the fact that this does not happen only with press releases and PR material, but also with agency news items and media contents “borrowed” from other media, which are signed by certain journalists. For example: “In Dani, under a picture of Ivo Miro Jovic (B&H Presidency member) they printed his statement which he had given in my program, but they failed to say that,” (Sarajevo, TV). Older and more experienced journalists stress that press releases are often incorrectly and unprofessionally written and that, besides the code of ethics, another reason why they cannot be used is their form. A journalist from a radio station in Tuzla stated: “SFOR and OSCE are disgustingly tiresome about this. When you ask them something, they say we’ve said everything in the material. They offered everything in advance, without giving you a possibility to ask them. They terribly abuse the media and violate fundamental rules. They want us to publish only what they think should be published,” Photographs are often carried, usually when an outlet does not send its own photographer or a photograph from PR material is of better technical quality. A few outlets publish entire PR material or parts of it, but they do not sign them as such. As for press releases, the example of a private radio station from Banja Luka is isolated, where the following case was reported: “Well, we really do try to carry it as it’s written in the materials that we get, but if it’s a political stream that the editor favors at a particular moment, then it’s rephrased a little in positive terms, and vice versa.” So, we see that there are also examples of weighing up and rephrasing even PR material, although various forms of manipulation are more present in journalists’ original reports and selection of facts.
Traps of ethics and the profession
Publishing unverified information is a common practice among B&H journalists, especially exclusive contents. Most of them distance themselves by using the following phrases: “according to unverified information,” “the talk in the lobbies is that…,” “we have found out unofficially,” etc, in order to emphasize that the published content has not been fully verified. Or, a question mark is often placed after big headlines that state something shocking or that accuse someone, by which journalists think they are disassociating themselves if it is not true. However, even such a headline inflicts damage that is hard to repair on the potentially damaged party. There are even cases of unverified and unchecked contents being published as a factual situation, without indicating their reliability, even in such a clumsy way. Therefore, hundreds of civil lawsuits against journalists and media should not be surprising (defamation in B&H was decriminalized in 2002). Such conduct is characteristic of print media, namely tabloids, and a number of interviewed journalists claim that Dnevni Avaz and Patriot often resort to this practice. The explanation for this phenomenon lies in the fact that print media sell with more difficulty and must constantly search for sensations. When nothing important is happening, they resort to and often rely on unofficial rumors. A second reason is the fact that print media in B&H are not under the hat of the Communications Regulatory Agency; instead they use the principle of self-regulation through the Press Council. Therefore, attention and concern is bigger among broadcasters in order to avoid legal sanctions.
Lying in the media is a common phenomenon, while publicly opposing and disclosing lies is relatively rare. It mostly appears in pre-election programs, in which representatives of opposing political options participate. Most journalists do not react if the person speaking is obviously lying. Reasons for this are manifold: journalists are often unprepared for the interview; they are unsure of the data which they themselves gathered and which denies certain allegations; they think it is impolite to directly draw attention to untruthfulness of information; they think it is unnecessary to intervene because the audience will know the person is lying, etc. Older journalists are in the habit of reacting right away by asking adequate questions, and they protect their professionalism with footage of the interview, verified information or similar techniques. It happens relatively often that journalists and media react subsequently, by later publishing “the other side of the story.”
Incorrect and inaccurate information, received from unreliable sources, is published or broadcast relatively often, but it is followed by denials and public apologies. Journalists emphasize that those to blame for these situations are journalists hungry for sensations. However, in a few media outlets denials are not published or broadcast and the “damaged” parties are forced to send their denials to other outlets to be published in paid space. Sometimes, abuses of denial happen. “Usually, another article is added to this, in which the other side is attacked, and it never ends… For example, everyone watches ’60 Minutes’ on FTV. Always a denial, and after the denial a 60 Minutes reaction, and in the next program a reaction to their reaction…” (Sarajevo, radio, 14 years of experience).
Media often attack public figures. In doing so, they try to stick to verified facts and do not enter the person’s “privacy and intimacy” and only present information of public importance. The interviewed journalists think that the public has a right to this kind of information and it is a journalist’s duty to provide the information. “You know, when someone enters your private life, e.g. where is your wife working, where your children go to school, etc. These are things that are completely irrelevant for the public, of course unless there is a direct conflict of interest. If I arrange a job for my wife using state money and I hold a position, then this should be spoken about with full right. But private things, such as who is friends with whom, are attempts to reach the public in a below-the-belt way.” (Sarajevo, private radio, 15 years of experience). Where the borderline between these two spheres lies depends on the journalist. This is why examples of violating another person are present. Examples of “public media trials” are especially common, in which a person is declared a criminal before this is proven in court. If the “attacked” person reacts, a denial or apology is issued. However, a denial never has such public strength as the initial journalistic report. According to interviewed journalists’ allegations, there have been cases of journalists being fired for attacking the “wrong” person, although there have also been cases of editors, for their own political or economic interest, consciously pushing journalists to act this way. Print media are more inclined to publish such ethically disputed contents because they are not controlled by CRA and they also have a bigger opportunity to manipulate information. On the other hand, if a guest or interviewed person makes accusations against another person, journalists generally do not consider themselves responsible because they are not the authors of the content.
One of the once most disputed ethical matters in B&H journalism was the newspaper Front Slobode publishing private correspondence between the head of the Tuzla Municipality public relations department, Fatmir Alispahic, and a colleague in Holland. Hackers broke into his mail and all his private letters were published. However an interviewed journalist from a Tuzla radio maintains: “That was not private correspondence because it was done during work hours, on a state computer. State means were used and you cannot refer to privacy if you work using state means. He had complained to certain associations and I think no one agreed with him. Although some colleagues said it was unethical, I think it’s unethical to do private work during work hours.” Still, is it not unethical to publish in the media something private and irrelevant to public interest, even if it was sent from a computer at work?
Secret filming is a relatively common, even somewhat normal phenomenon in all B&H media, especially broadcasters, although print media are not immune against it either.
“We had a case when we were supposed to take pictures of an illegally constructed building ‘guarded’ by the boss’s boys night and day. It’s entirely normal that you won’t appear in the middle of the day with a camera in your hand; it would be suicide. These kinds of pictures are taken secretly. Such things, in my opinion, are not unethical; they are essential to avoid worse consequences for the journalist or photographer.” (Banja Luka, weekly newspaper)
“It’s possible that you have been pulling someone by the sleeve for days to give you a statement. And then, an opportunity arises during a telephone conversation to get certain information from this person. You just turn on the recording on the telephone and it gets recorded.” (Banja Luka, radio)
Lack of professionalism, ethics and education of journalists is the cause of frequent examples of violation of human rights. In search of sensations, and sometimes also out of revenge or ignorance, journalists publish information about suspects, arrested people or others, thus directly violating human rights. Although CRA and the Press Council have strong regulations, they are violated more or less consciously. There are many examples and we will present here some of the most striking ones.
“This always happens when writing about The Hague indictees, for example if a report is being done about their arrest. They are immediately attributed blame and they are immediately sentenced, although we know that no one is guilty until proven so. (Banja Luka, radio)
“Muamer Topalovic (who murdered a Croat family in Konjic) and his family did not get off our waves for months! The editor staged a public trial on our radio.” (Mostar, radio)
“We had a 400 mark fine for coverage of the Herak case. Commentary was not separated from article. It’s our mistake, actually our ignorance; we mixed up commentary and fact and thus, according to a CRA decision, we jeopardized the integrity of a person in court. We suggested the court verdict to the audience in our comments. Actually, we had commented on who would pay damages to victims for inflicted mental anguish. It would have been all right to air all that if we had just separated it from the item.” (Sarajevo, private TV)
“Some say that the rights of the accused are violated if we bring into the studio a woman who will speak about how she and her 10-year-old daughter in Foca were raped by Serb soldiers led by the commander of some RS Army unit, who is now in The Hague awaiting sentencing by the Tribunal?! What about these women’s rights?! I’ve really had it with all that!... I don’t care if her testimony will hurt a Serb commander from Foca or Visegrad who is now in The Hague.” (Sarajevo, radio)
Generally speaking, journalists are more sensitive to victims of crime and therefore the “public hearing” staged for Topalovic, who killed an entire Croat family on Christmas, or ruthlessness towards those accused of mass rape, should not be surprising. However, journalists have to suppress their emotions and apply ethical principles and professional rules.
Here are a few more examples.
“The case of the Ukrainian prostitute Elena Popik was covered in a very unethical, harsh and sensational way, using mob psychology, although this is an unfortunate woman who died at the age of 21. I remember articles in Slobodna Bosna about Dragan Cavic (RS president), about his underage son being a drug addict and dealing drugs. I don’t think a boy, just because he is a president’s son, should be dragged through the papers that way.” (Bijeljina, radio)
“The full name of a girl who allegedly had AIDS and lived in Mostar was published in a newspaper. The girl was linked to the name of the Ukrainian Elena Popik and was placed in a very negative context. After a while, it turned out that the girl did not have AIDS, but pneumonia.” (Mostar, daily newspaper)
“Just remember those two girls from Croatia whose lives were ruined because the media disclosed their full identity, the only reason being that they were born with AIDS.” (Banja Luka, radio)
“On its front page, Dnevni Avaz featured a photograph with the body of an 11-year-old boy killed by electricity at a railway station. That was classical abuse of a child’s accident for commercial purposes. Just like the publishing of information about the kidnapping of Mak Varesanovic (son of the director of the football team Sarajevo), which directly jeopardized the victim’s life.” (Sarajevo, weekly newspaper)
“I was astounded two or three months ago when Glas Srpske brought a story about the rape of a 16-year-old girl from Prnjavor. The journalist was so meticulous that he described everything: what kind of family the girl was from, what grade she was in, who was her homeroom teacher, who was her uncle, that she was a problematic girl. They did not publish her first and last name, but they did not have to. They painted her picture. Then the case of a wild boy from somewhere near Modrica, shown on RTRS: the boy was running, and the cameraman was chasing him. The identity, picture and name of the boy were revealed; he was found in very unfortunate circumstance, living with his alcoholic uncle, with dogs, without even learning to speak properly by the age of seven. Newspapers and public television treated this as a sensation. Prosecutor’s offices adopted an especially backward practice a year ago. They don’t release the names of suspects and accused; rather they say that so and so, whose initials are T. K., killed his ex lover, and then they give her first and last name. She is branded lover, she is dead, and now she is being killed again by having her full name released, while the one who killed her remains protected by initials. This lack of balance in relation to the victim is an everyday occurrence and such examples can be found in newspapers every day.” (Bijeljina, radio)
In cases when media report about minors involved in crime, it is customary practice not to disclose their first and last name, but only their initials and age. Of course, there are exceptions to this rule once again, usually in the print media. Dnevni Avaz is mentioned most often in this context, as well as some other outlets.
“There is an online outlet in Mostar, which always discloses complete names even when minors are involved.” (Mostar, daily newspaper)
Physical or mental handicaps are sometimes used in B&H journalism with the aim of violating reputation, creating sensations or just ridiculing a person. Journalists think that this is highly unethical and unprofessional and they mention a number of outlets where this happens relatively often, such as, for example, the newspapers Dnevni Avaz, Slobodna Bosna, Dani, and Front Slobode, as well as FTV.
“I remember a case when some poor guy was protesting outside the building of Oslobodjenje or Avaz, I don’t remember which one any more. It was obvious that he was a mental patient, but in each issue Dnevni Avaz treated this as an extraordinary event and one day a photograph showing his genitals even appeared, which was a precedent. And I remember that I was reserved towards Adi Sarajlic’s project ‘Streets of fire,’ which was about a specific type of mental patients. I may be wrong, perhaps my ideas of vanguard and new forms in journalism are not right, but when you treat persons who simply do not answer for their behavior in your program, I think that clashes with professional standards.” (Sarajevo, private radio)
“Many media ridicule Sulejman Tihic’s ears (B&H Presidency member), and Avaz ridicules the physical appearance of Senad Avdic (well-known journalist), using a technically incorrect photograph to make him look as ugly as possible and thus create public repulsion against him.” (Sarajevo, weekly newspaper)
Reduced mention of religious, ethnic, sexual or other background or orientation of those involved in criminal acts is an example that ethics in B&H journalism is slowly rising to the level of professionalism. Namely, until recently it was most important in all criminal acts to indicate the perpetrator’s religion. Thanks to CRA pressure, media professionalization, and a change in the overall climate in the country, the quality of B&H journalism in this field has improved. There are still delays, but to a considerably lesser degree. The most common examples are emphasizing that a Roma had taken part in a theft or that a public figure is a homosexual. These delays are still present because the public is interested in these essentially unimportant details of crimes, but the task and goal of any serious outlet and journalist is to abandon this practice because it builds a negative perception of members of individual populations.
Media relatively rarely use children or mentally handicapped persons as a source of information for their coverage, but there are some examples. In the majority of cases, children are interviewed when a reportage is made about a children’s institution or if a campaign is supposed to be launched to improve their status. A few journalists believe that in these situations children are the only relevant source and that it is not unethical to do this if it is for their own good. The line between what is ethical and what is good for the child is very variable and journalists draw it by their own instinct. Still, drastic use of their statements with the aim of abuse, mockery or threatening children’s safety is very rare and everyone unanimously condemns it. “I know of a case that happened in Bijeljina when an under-age girl was involved in a human trafficking scandal … It seems that journalists were trying to get information on human trafficking routes through her.” (Banja Luka, private TV).
Journalists usually confide who their sources are to their editors, and sometimes also newsroom colleagues. Pressure to reveal sources outside the newsroom is present and comes from courts, formal or informal groups, as well as other newsrooms. However, journalists agree that sources should not be revealed because that is not in line with the journalistic code. One of the interviewed journalists made an interesting and witty comparison: “If God is holy to a religious person, then a source is to a journalist.” A concession can be made, said one of the interviewees, only to colleagues from the same outlet, but not even them if the issue is sensitive because there is a risk that the other journalist would leave the outlet or profession and abuse the information.
Convicted criminals are frequently given an opportunity by media for a public confession. Interviewed journalists cited a number of examples, such as an interview with Biljana Plavsic (former RS president convicted for war crimes) on Alternativna TV or Ismet Bajramovic Celo’s confession in Slobodna Bosna, where the convicted criminal was described as a sick man. Journalists justify such media conduct by the fact that everyone has a right to express their opinion, or that it sells, or that it even has an educational character. They are skeptical with regard to how strong an influence these stories have on their public perception, except in major cases. On the other hand, there is an interesting situation in B&H: “One doesn’t know any more who is a criminal; in some places they are criminals and in others these same people are heroes and defenders.” It is evident that journalists do not have highly developed ethical barriers against criminals, but they differ in how they report about them. Print media such as Dnevni Avaz, Slobodna Bosna, Dani, Patriot, Trn and others are again more inclined to glorify and justify criminals, but broadcasters are not immune against this ailment of B&H journalism either.
Solutions – reinforcing professionalism, education, and sensitivity to current events
The journalistic profession reflects the overall social and political situation in B&H. The habitual weaknesses of B&H journalism today are low salaries, exposure of journalists to continuous political and economic pressure coming from media editors and owners, strong self-censorship among editors and journalists caused by ethnic and political frustrations and fears, disunity of journalist associations, lack of a strong journalist syndicate…
Although modern media legislation exists, some solutions are hard to implement. Lack of strong police and judicial authorities affects journalists’ safety. There is strong competition within B&H , but competition also comes from media from Croatia and Serbia & Montenegro, which are available in B&H through press distribution and TV cable operators.
Bosnia-Herzegovina is the first country in the region to decriminalize defamation and libel. Journalists can no longer be imprisoned for defamation or libel, but they are threatened with high fines in civil suits, which has a negative reflection on understanding of journalistic and media freedom. It is paradoxical that it is mostly journalists that sue one another, as a result of numerous animosities, political and ethnic friction, and unfair battle for the market and donations. B&H is the first in the region to pass a law on freedom of access to information, which helps journalists collect data much more easily. However, the results and effects of the law are still weaker than expected. The profession is dominantly to blame for this because journalists have still not realized the advantages and benefits of the law, especially in the context of investigative journalism. On the other hand, relevant institutions have been working in line with the law, but relatively slow. Information is issued at journalists’ request, but this is slow and, as a rule, only when certain news is no longer current.
Still, the situation in B&H journalism has considerably improved over the last years. Media transition, like transition of society in general, is slow, but it is moving in a positive direction, primarily thanks to the international community’s engagement, as well as passage of time since the war, which enables a more rational approach to problems to be taken.
Those partly to thank for media professionalization are journalism schools, workshops and other educational projects, which are placing more and more emphasis in educating young journalists on the issue of media ethics.
Analysis has confirmed that the process of transition of B&H media is going in the right direction, although it is relatively slow. Extreme examples of violation of professional ethics are still present and usually culminate during election campaigns and turbulent political happenings. It is therefore necessary to continue activities aimed at professionalization of media by reinforcing ethical standards.
Mirela Čamo is analyst in Media plan Institute and head of project «Media and ethics» in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Radenko Udovičić is editor in chief of Mediaonline. © Media Online 2005. All rights reserved.