©Media Online 2001. All rights reserved.

Southeast Europe – A Terra Incognita for Media Researchers:

An Interview with Nena Skopljanac

Stojan Obradovic

Nena Skopljanac has been working on empirical and theoretical media research for a long time, in particular the role of the media in the wars in the territory of the former Yugoslavia. She is an activist with the organization “Medienhilfe fur Ex Jugoslawien” based in Zurich, which supports independent media in this region, and she works as an assistant lecturer at the Institute for Media Studies of the University of Bern. She is one of the editors and authors of a volume called “The Media and War,” which was created as a result of a research project of the same name dealing with analysis of media in Croatia and Serbia during the conflict in Croatia. The volume was the basis for discussion at the “Hate Speech” roundtable organized jointly by Croatian Helsinki Board, Law Center Sarajevo and Center for Transition and Civil Society Research Zagreb in April in Rovinj.

            MediaOnline: In your opinion, what are the most significant general findings of research on the relationship between the media and the war in the former Yugoslavia? Can we speak of significant differences from one state to the next or do we find more or less identical patterns when we speak of the relationship between the media and the war?

            SKOPLJANAC: Unfortunately, the sources on which the answer to your question can be based cannot completely be labeled as research results. Namely, as far as I know, research was not done at all in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Montenegro, Macedonia and Kosovo. There are monitoring results carried out in certain periods, philosophical and theoretical essays, and journalistic analyses. However, by looking into the various material available to me, I can say that the employed strategies were basically the same, and they were based on a combination of the following elements:

1.      1.      nationalization of discourse aimed at reducing different levels of individual identity to national/ethnic origin, which makes an individual relevant only as a member of a collectivity – nation/ethnic group, which becomes the main factor, in whose name and for which one should fight, shrinking from no means and regardless of consequences;

2.      2.      mythologization of discourse, which means revitalizing national myths and using them to create new national identity;

3.      3.      reinterpretation of history and using it as an instrument for petty political purposes;

4.      4.      creating a cult of victim, namely an image of ‘us’ as someone who has always been a victim or even permanently subjected to genocide on part of the ‘other’;

5.      5.      emotionalization and militarization of discourse by using bipolar black-and-white stereotypes and attributes with strong emotional fervor in building a counter-polar image of ‘us’ and the ‘other’;

The essential difference between ‘us’ as, for example, ‘people with a thousand-year-old culture’ (Croats), or ‘heavenly people’ (Serbs), or ‘the only direct descendents of the Illyrians’ (Albanians) is irrelevant for researchers. What is relevant is that all three of the ‘us’ were built by using the same discursive and rhetoric strategies and with completely the same function.

                MediaOnline: Has research by now showed all types of responsibility or causal relationships between the media and the war, or is this systematization yet to be made? Generally speaking, what has research systematically covered so far, and what in your opinion has remained uncovered or poorly covered, or even incorrectly covered in research?

                SKOPLJANAC: Research carried out so far has had the character of scientific research and its aim was not and could not be to determine the types of responsibility or cause-and-effect relationships. In order to do this, it would be necessary to carry out a different type of research based on applying a criminal and legal approach.

                As for what has or has not been done so far, as far as I know no research has been done whose sample encompasses the media in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia and Kosovo. As for Croatia, the ‘Media and War’ research is the only comparative research project carried out so far, which was done by applying the same methodology to the leading state-run print and broadcast media in Croatia and Serbia. The majority of research projects implemented up to now do not have a multidisciplinary character, which is essential as this is a very complex phenomenon. The majority of works published on this subject so far constitute a secondary analysis based on the results of a number of empirical research projects done so far, published or not.

                I think it should be the other way around, namely there should be much more empirical research, based primarily on the application of a qualitative methodology, than there has been up so far. After all, media discourse is not the only relevant factor in the creation of public discourse. On top of that, it is not the primary or most significant creator of public discourse, especially not in types of society where freedom of the media does not exist and where the media are primarily a powerful tool that political structures use to exercise dominant influence on the forming of public discourse. I think it should not be specially elaborated that the former SFRY (Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) belonged to this type of society. This is why it would be very important to research, for example, the discourse of political and intellectual élites in the territory of the former Yugoslavia at the end of the eighties and beginning of the nineties.

                MediaOnline: What are the key conditions for organizing systematic research on the relationship between the media and the war in the territory of the former Yugoslavia (organizational, staffing, financial)? Can this be done by existing research institutions and scientific institutions or does it require new institutions (media institutes, etc.) and new, specially trained researchers?

                SKOPLJANAC: The most important problem, which is relevant for all communities, is the non-availability or non-existence of research material with regard to the broadcast media, primarily TV as the most influential medium. As far as I know, only in Serbia does there exist recorded material of RTS’s news program for the 1990-94 period, and even that only for the ‘TV Dnevnik’ news broadcast. Also, a common problem are financial resources required for research. I do not expect, for example, that ministries of science in the newly-created states will be enthusiastic about financing such projects. Research so far has generally been financed by international foundations and national ‘Open Society’ foundations. In addition to these common problems, in some communities there are not enough researchers who can carry out more comprehensive research projects. Existing scientific and research institutions, as well as private research agencies formed during the nineties, do not have enough financial and staffing resources to implement more complex research projects.

                MediaOnline: What key things can media researchers in the territory of the former Yugoslavia take from similar experiences in democratic nations?

                SKOPLJANAC: Media and communication studies in states created in the territory of the former Yugoslavia are quite underdeveloped. In the United States and especially in Western European countries, media and communication studies have experienced a real boom over the past several years. There are more and more departments at universities and new specialized scientific research institutes and agencies. The number of students has also increased many times, for example in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, in Scandinavian countries. In addition, considerable progress has been made in theoretical approaches and methodology used in media and communication research, brought about primarily by the application of multidisciplinary approaches, where media and communication theories are combined with those from the fields of psychology, political science, sociology, linguistics, and lately also increasingly cultural studies, gender studies and ethnicity studies. It is to be expected that these trends will reach our region.

                I think that existing institutes, which, among other things, deal with research in these fields, and departments at existing universities, and especially private research agencies established over the last ten years, are a solid starting basis. Although the present financial and material problems are huge and should not be underestimated, I still think that the most important problem faced by our researchers, generally speaking, is insufficient insight into recent theoretical and methodological approaches and results of latest research. Among studies and scientific articles published in this region, one can rarely find those whose references include foreign works published over the last couple of years. I think it would be very important to provide research institutions with online access to available foreign libraries and study trips abroad. Organizing special seminars, summer studies taught by leading foreign theoreticians and researchers in the capacity of visiting lecturers, and hosting visiting professors for a period of one to two semesters, etc. – all these are things that would stimulate development of media and communication studies in this region.

                MediaOnline: Although war rhetoric in media in some countries of the former Yugoslavia has died down, it is not rare to hear assertions that hate speech through the media continues, only changing form. How should this new phenomenon in these new conditions and forms of appearance be researched? What new ‘fields’ in these research projects should be covered? How should they be methodologically organized and directed?

                SKOPLJANAC: I would partly agree with your observation. Because, for example in Macedonia, warmongering rhetoric and hate speech became an integral part of the media discourse only in the past few weeks and it has been gaining in intensity. Also, rhetoric in a lot of media in Kosovo has not changed much compared to the period preceding the signing of the Kumanovo Agreement. At least not when it comes to hate speech against the ‘other.’ I assume that when you say that war rhetoric in the media has died down and that hate speech has acquired new forms, you are referring to Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia and Montenegro. However, I would not fully agree with that observation either. For example, hate speech against those with different political opinion and against opponents is still present even in Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia and Montenegro. The form has remained more or less the same, the actors towards whom it is directed are also the same, the only change is that it is no longer the mainstream discourse present in the majority of the mass media, but has been pushed to the margins.

                As for hate speech against members of nations and ethnic communities who were demonized as enemies in the dominant discourse in the nineties, it is practically gone from the mass media and public discourse in general. But this does not mean that negative stereotypes, prejudice, distrust and even hatred are gone towards these groups, as they are a product of hate speech against them as the dominant constant over the past years. Finally, in public and media discourse there is a new trend that may be regarded as a racist discourse, as the West calls it. Here I am primarily referring to anti-Semitism and to racist discourse with regard to discriminated ethnic and social groups (e.g. the Romanies), which is increasingly present in all communities, as well as discourse with regard to, for example, (illegal) immigrants, which is characteristic of Slovenia.

                Racism in the media and public discourse is one of several issues that drew the attention of an increasing number of researchers in western European countries, especially in Germany, in the nineties. There is a number of valuable comparative research projects, of which I would particularly like to point out research on racist discourse using the critical discourse analysis method of Teun van Dijk and Ruth Wodak. Racist discourse is essentially based on the principle of discrimination against the ‘other,’ the aim being to justify this kind of discrimination and make it generally accepted. It may, but does not have to have hate speech as one of its components. In this regard theoretical concepts for researching racist discourse differ considerably from researching hate speech in the context of preparation for war and war propaganda.

                MediaOnline: Is it possible to establish productive cooperation between the media and researchers, and if so, how? Can research help the media and if so, how?

                SKOPLJANAC: Research results may encourage and serve as a foundation for organizing roundtables, seminars, conferences, etc., in which journalists and editors, together with researchers in the field of media and communication studies, can discuss issues that research results point out as being relevant for the journalistic practice and profession. This may initiate certain positive processes within the journalist community. For example, through their professional associations they can improve existing solutions in self-regulation documents, such as professional/ethical codes for journalists and editors. Also, open discussion on, for example, the causes of violation of professional norms and the causes of practicing hate speech discourse would show that the initiators are usually media owners – who are often in collusion with certain political circles – and editors, especially editors in chief. Open debate in professional circles, and perhaps also the public, on the sources and forms of pressure that journalists are subjected to, may initiate improvement in the field of media freedom and freedom of expression.

                MediaOnline: What, in your opinion, does comprehensive media analysis involve?

Stojan Obradovic is the Editor in Chief of the independent news agency STINA, Split (Croatia). ©Media Online 2001. All rights reserved.

go to top

P.O. Box, CH-8031 Zürich, Switzerland
Phone +41-1-272 46 37,  Fax +41-1-272 46 82, email: info@MEDIENHILFE.ch