The Media System in the Republic of Macedonia:

Broadcasting between the Normative and the Real

 Vesna Sopar and Emilija Jovanova[1], Institute for Sociological, Political and Legal Research, Skopje

 I. Problem-Oriented Research Structure

 Successful functioning of any media system depends on its regularity and democratic character. Fulfillment of these two criteria is directly related to the character of the system itself and providing conditions for its practical establishment. The first aspect presupposes the acceptance of the most efficient model and concept of media development and is related to the specific normative and institutional framework. The second is related to defining procedural and technical preconditions for realizing the model. However, the very relationship between the normative and the actual is a problem that media systems in countries in transition encounter most often.

This duality, “typical” of media functioning in the Republic of Macedonia, exists at a formal and an informal level. In this system we also “recognize” a third entity/member – the hub of the penetration of the informal into the formal framework. The level of the formal, or the institutional, encompasses all media functioning in the framework of normative and legal regulations, while the level of the informal encompasses activities and subjects that exist parallel to them, but outside the normative framework of the system. The third aspect is a result of many years of a legal vacuum in the media sphere, and its appearance has, more or less, directly influenced the creation of a formal media structure. The entry of alternative media into the normative and procedural framework in effect fills the system voids characteristic of the previous information and communication system.[2]

Precisely due to this, the basic problem-oriented research structure contains the following three frameworks. First, the existing institutional context as the basis of functioning of the media system, its characteristics and features. Second, locating the points of contradiction between the legal solutions and the reality. Third, analysis of characteristic normative solutions in which the formal, informal and alternative levels are mutually interwoven. The central focus of research interest is the “dual broadcasting system, or (1) the normative foundation of the system, (2) its implementation in practice, and (3) the area in which the normative appears as the cause of deformity and of “hybrid” solutions, which practically destroys the fundamental concept of the system. The latter is one of the indicators for re-examining the (non)adaptability of the media system to the real social context.

The research subject framework encompasses two segments: theoretical and empirical. The aim is to examine, in a descriptive-explanatory and prescriptive-critical manner, the consistency of the broadcasting system, its universal character, on one hand, and uni-linearity on the other. We developed the hypothetical research framework on the basis of a plural, very dynamic, but also contradictory broadcasting environment, which is incomplete both technically and technologically, and which is constantly being developed and built on. We generally assume that the establishment of a normative framework for the media system fulfills the basic preconditions for quantitative and qualitative changes in the programming, organizational and technical structure of media organizations. The physiognomy of the contemporary broadcast media system depends on the intensity, forms and content of these changes. In this research we will also try to verify, prove or deny the validity of the following hypotheses. First, a dual broadcasting system presupposes dominance of the public service and certain limited power of the commercial service. Second, “new” commercial media, different by their structure, character and editorial policy, create a different picture of reality, different from the picture presented by the public service, i.e. different from official state policy. Third, the discrepancy between the normative and the actual in media space, contrary to efforts for democratization of the media sphere, creates a basis for media paternity.

The operational research principles are: problem orientation, case study, dynamics, contextual quality (parallel existence, simultaneous and mutual action of elements in the formal system and the informal space), social interest identification (subjects, values, views). Social identification encompasses: (1) the structure of broadcasting institutions, at national and local level, and (2) the relation between public and commercial media as the determinant of institutional constitution of the dominant media system structure.

The basic methodological determinants of research are:

• content analysis method – quantitative and qualitative analysis of legislation, first of all the Law on Broadcasting Activity and Law on Establishing the Public Enterprise Macedonian Radio Television,

• case study method – individual cases of broadcasting subjects directly bearing the brunt of the system’s “non-functionality.

These are very precise, systematic and expanded methodic procedures, which offer objective findings and guarantee the credibility of the results obtained as a foundation for analytic evaluation of the normative-actual relation.

Secondary sources of information will also be used in research – primarily available data from relevant research projects conducted in Macedonia, in order to obtain precise empirical indicators regarding the broadcasting sphere. These include:

• interview technique – public opinion surveys in 1998 and 1999 carried out by the Institute for Sociological and Political-Legal Research,

• monitoring of broadcasters – Broadcasting Council analysis carried out during the parliamentary (1998) and presidential (1999) elections; as well as regular analyses of the work of broadcasters; monitoring with participation in activities related to legislation (seminars, panel discussions, gatherings, conferences, etc.); documents from various institutions (chiefly the Broadcasting Council, written communication, minutes, personal media records, etc.).

The data gathering procedure for the media “personal card” was one of the most comprehensive and longest segments. Due to the dynamic development of the media system (appearance of new media) on one hand, and media closeness for certain details (such as newspaper circulation or ownership) on the other, the portrait of the media scene is incomplete, but this does not diminish the value of the available documentation.

 II.  The Socio-Economic and Political Framework

The Republic of Macedonia is a country in which the social and political system is based on the principles of parliamentary democracy, market-driven economy, rule of law, free and open society, integration in European structures and trends. Having said this, creation of a “modern” democratic system could not avoid problems such as economic underdevelopment, lack of democratic tradition and civil initiative, ideologization of the political sphere, inconsistency of the legal system, dysfunctional development of human rights and inter-ethnic relations.

Looking from today’s perspective, and despite all these problems differing by their character and degree, in the economy there has been a continuous and lately dynamic final trend of privatization of the remaining economic capacities (most of them large), but also a trend of revision of privatization carried out so far accompanied by dissatisfaction and scandals. At the same time, development of small- and medium-size companies has been supported (with credits of the international community), particularly in the field of agriculture and cattle breeding. The aim is to help not only the underdeveloped rural part of the country, but also to resolve the problem of high unemployment (more than 30%) and to reduce the migration pressure towards large cities, in which gray economy is flourishing due to “overbooking” of the labor force (most of them young and educated). In this context is the economic opening of the country to foreign capital in order to alleviate the country’s economic underdevelopment and improve the poor social situation. Moreover, in light of the fact that 20 percent of the population (according to latest research carried out by the World Bank) falls it the category of poor and “on the verge of poverty,” which in itself speaks about the standard in this country, and even explains the increase in the number of vagrants, delinquents, prostitution, alcoholism and drug addiction. On the other side, we cannot neglect the introduction of a new banking and fiscal system (introduction of value added tax), the insistence of principles of stable monetary policy, the national economic boost, the state budget surplus.

In the social sphere, reforms are underway in the social insurance system (a new private system of pension insurance is being introduced parallel to the existing system) and health care (through privatization of certain health institutions and participation of citizens in health care services). Attempts have been made to alleviate the housing policy problem by providing housing assistance to the most vulnerable citizens. Implementation of a law on de-nationalization is underway, aimed at restoring nationalized apartments to citizens that had been taken from them in the previous system.

In the political sphere, the multiparty system is the fundamental characteristic of the Macedonian Parliament. A large number of political parties participate in the authorities, and their representatives in the parliament are elected in free and democratic elections (by direct and secret vote) using a combined majority-proportionate election model. After 10 years of independence, the Republic of Macedonia has behind it its third parliamentary composition and, what is perhaps most important, a democratic transfer of authority from one political option (SDSM-Social-Democratic Union, in coalition with the Liberal Party and Party for Democratic Prosperity – Albanian party) into the hands of another (“Coalition for Changes” composed of VMRO-DPMNE, Democratic Alternative Party, and DPA – Democratic Party of Albanians). This concretely, in practice, proves the applicability of the plural system principle. Macedonia, in contrast to major turbulence in the region, is a relatively stable, ethnically mixed democracy.

In the same context, in the framework of the legal sector, we should particularly point out activities related to establishing moderns state administration and modern local self-rule in the service of citizens. Still, these are only initial steps in decentralizing the authorities and crushing the monopoly of the state. More or less “formalized” and inefficient mechanisms of control and restriction of the authorities’ power (such as parliamentary survey commissions) are still being applied.

With regard to human rights, what perhaps speaks the most is the fact that the institute of the complaints commissioner-ombudsman has existed in Macedonia for three years now, and we should also mention the increasing number of non-governmental organizations. Still, development and promotion of inter-ethnic relations deserves particular attention. It is well known that the Republic of Macedonia is a multi-ethnic community, which is inhabited, in addition to the majority Macedonian population, also by Albanians, Turks, Romanies, Vlachs and Serbs. Development of “relaxation” of inter-ethnic relations is by no means an easy task. On this point, the civil concept of the state guarantees all rights to all citizens of Macedonia irrespective of religion, race or ethnic origin. The so-called “quota system” functions in practice (especially for Albanians as the largest minority group – 23 percent), which enables active participation of an increasing number of minority members in all areas of life and work. This system is applied successfully on all levels, from local self-rule to the top of the state authorities, in the university education system, in the employment system.

In this plural and dynamic environment, media have a special place. In the struggle to establish a contemporary media system, there have been attempts to put radio and television back into state hands, to introduce a moratorium on frequencies, and to have direct influence of the authorities on management and editorial policy of “national media.” Formal proclamation of the principles of public interest and media commercialization have been used to accuse the media of being the only ones “to blame” for violation of the “fundamental freedom of public information.” Today, the situation in this sphere is making progress formally and legally, but in practice it is showing sings of regression.

 III. The General Characteristics of the Media Scene

Independence of the Republic of Macedonia as a sovereign state and the adoption of its 1991 Constitution marked the beginning of a process of liberalization and pluralism of information for print media and broadcasters. In only several years, hundreds of private newspapers and magazines and more than 250 private broadcasters appeared in the media scene. This is a media and sociological phenomenon, particularly from the aspect of the size of Macedonia’s territory (25,713 square kilometers) and population (1,945,932 under the 1994 Census of the Population).

 1.       The Development of Broadcasters

The explosive development of broadcasters lasted until 1997 when the Law on Broadcasting Activity was passed and the Broadcasting Council formed. Laws defining the status of the Public Enterprise Macedonian Radio Television and the newly-formed Public Enterprise Macedonian Broadcasting, at the beginning of 1998, as well as allocation of the first concessions for broadcasting activity (in July of the same year), normatively constituted the public and private sectors, formally establishing pluralism in the sphere of broadcasters. Today, radio and television program is broadcast by 30 subjects in the public sector (see Table 1) and 111 subjects in the private sector. The public sector consists of Macedonian Radio Television (three TV and five radio channels) and 29 local radio stations, of which 12 also broadcast TV program. The private sector consists of 111 trade broadcasting societies (see Table 2) and four national concessionaires (two radio and two TV stations).[3]

Macedonian Radio Television, as the national broadcasting service, daily broadcasts around 90 hours of radio and 61 hours of TV program.[4] First TV channel programming (which covers 96 percent of Macedonia’s territory) is primarily focused on news, culture, education and entertainment. The second channel covers 94 percent of territory, and in addition to other content, also broadcasts programming in the languages of the national minorities (17 hours a week in Albanian, 19 hours in Turkish, and one hour each in the Romany, Serbian and Vlach languages). The third TV channel covers only 50 percent of territory and broadcasts satellite program.[5]

The public broadcasting system at local level has a similar programming orientation, but with a still undefined legal position. The status of 29 local radio stations, who have different founders, was not consistently resolved even with the passing of the Law on Broadcasting Activity (Article 92), whose provisions are not in accordance with the Law on Local Self-Rule, Law on Public Enterprises or Law on Territorial Division, particularly in the part related to the exercising of the local self-rule right to establish public enterprises.[6] As the Law on Broadcasting Activity does not precisely regulate the status of these enterprises with regard to newly-formed municipalities, the Law on Local Self-Rule (Article 10) provides the possibility of uniting resources and forming joint organizations and enterprises.  Such a solution is offered in the Law on Macedonian Radio Television (Article 29). This means that the existing local radio stations are to continue working as public broadcasters at local level, and to conclude a contract to this end to take over founding rights with the municipalities in whose territory they broadcast. However, not even this technical solution was of much help. In the envisioned time (February 1998), only five enterprises harmonized their work with the legal provisions (Radio Probistip, Radio Kratovo, Radio Negotino, Radio Tetovo and Radio Demir Hisar), while in the remaining enterprises, the founding rights (in conditions of unresolved status) were taken over by the Government of Macedonia.

If we take into account the territory covered by the national-level public service, there is no doubt that MRTV is the most influential enterprises, or more precisely, that it has conditions to establish biggest influence on the general public. Similar to this, in the private sector, four networks at national level (TV A1, TV Sitel, Radio Kanal 77 and Radio Antena 5), which cover around 70 percent of the population, are the trade broadcasting societies with the biggest influence. In contrast to this, unlike ground broadcasting, Macedonia still does not have cable distribution of radio and television programming.[7]

 2.       The Sphere of Print Media

The picture of today’s media scene in the field of the press is as follows: 11 daily newspapers (Table 3), 21 weeklies (Table 4), 10 bi-weekly newspapers and magazines (Table 5), 20 monthly newspapers and magazines (Table 6), 21 periodical magazines (Table 7) and, as a special category, magazines for certain target groups – 21 magazines for children (Table 8). Eight daily newspapers are published in the Macedonian language, two are in Albanian, and one is in Turkish. Nine daily newspapers have news and political content, while two focus exclusively on sports issues (Skok and Makedonski sport). All daily newspapers are published six times a week (they take a break on Sunday), and they usually contain a number of supplements during the week, generally on sports, TV program, entertainment, advertisements, etc.

The majority of the weeklies (17) are published in the Macedonian language and have news and political content, but there are also some that specialize in humor and satire, students, film, theater and television, economy and law, advertising, puzzles and crosswords. Four weeklies (Narodni glas, Nas vesnik, Bitolski vesnik and Tetovski vesnik) are of local character and they deal with current events in their specific areas. In the records of the Information Agency (formerly Ministry of Information) of the Government of Macedonia, there are 87 registered bi-weekly magazines, of which 30 or so have local character and it is almost impossible to determine whether they come out regularly or occasionally. The fact is that they are relatively dependent both in editorial policy and in the material sense on their founders (publishers). As far as their concept is concerned, the majority of these magazines are: reviews with puzzles and crosswords, youth tabloids, professional reviews and magazines (on agronomy, on economy, for emigrants), newsmagazines, as well as political party and religious newspapers, of which there are 10 (Forum, Trudbenik, Tribina, Stipski vesnik, Ekonomski pres, Ekonomski magazin, Makedonija, Izbor, Eureka and Modest).

The number of registered monthlies (333) is almost three times the number of bi-weeklies, but only 20 of them are published regularly, while the rest appear from time to time, depending on resources. The situation regarding periodical press is similar: out of 200 magazines, only 21 appear on the market continuously. Concept-wise, most of them are professional, scientific magazines, reviews for women, of which there are 12 in Macedonian, 5 in Macedonian and English, 3 in Albanian, and one in the Vlach language. A special group are magazines for children (there are 22), of which a large number receive financial assistance from various foreign associations, while those in the framework of the News Publishing Enterprise “Nova Makedonija” (total 9) have been subsidized from the Republic Budget for years. In 1998, after a reaction from private publishers, the Republic Pedagogic Bureau and Ministry of Education decided that 20 of these magazines may be used as school aids in schools and pre-school institutions.

The most influential print media in Macedonia are certainly daily news media, and among them, judging by circulation and scope of advertising (if there is no precise data), in the following order: Dnevnik, Utrinski vesnik, Vecer, Nova Makedonija, Makedonija denes, and Fakti (the latter in the Albanian language).

 3.       The Internet

The Internet has been developing very quickly in Macedonia over the past few years. According to data from the Ministry of Transport and Communications (which allocates concessions for Internet services), 15 Internet providers are today registered in the Republic (MTNET, PORTA, UNET, MOL, IOS, LINK, TELEKOM, EURONET, TEAS, MK-INTER, MEDIS, INFORMA, ON.NET, MIKRONET, MAGNALEKTA and DC). The total number of dial-up users in January 2000 was 13,083, and 88 users are using the same access via rented lines. There is different and contradictory data on the total number of Internet subscribers for the simple reason that this is a very dynamic category. Unfortunately, there is no official data for this year. The figure in circulation at the moment is 10,000 subscribers which, compared to the size of the population, means that every 200th Macedonian is an Internet subscriber, and, compared to the number of households (501,963 under the 1994 Census of the Population), it means that every 50th household has Internet access.

 4.       The Communication Market

The main source of financing for the public sector is the broadcasting tax. According to MRTV data, the number of registered users of radio and TV sets as of June 30, 2000 was 532,230, of which 487,355 are family households and 44,965 are enterprises and other legal entities. Broadcasting tax is paid together with the electricity bill. The amount of the tax is determined every month by the Broadcasting Council based on Statistics Bureau data on salaries in the previous month. Around 6,000 households are exempted from this tax due to poor quality of signal in their areas, as well as 2,000 blind, deaf and dumb persons – per family head. Pursuant to the Law on Broadcasting Activity, the tax is distributed as follows: 67.5% for MRTV, 16.5% for the Public Enterprise Macedonian Broadcasting, 5% for local broadcasters, and 10% for financing radio and TV programming of private broadcasters and independent producers. The cumulative percentage of collected broadcasting tax, as of May 31, 2000 (according to data of the power utility Public Enterprise Elektroprivreda RM) amounted to 76.39%.

Public broadcasters at local level, except for resources amounting to 5% of the tax, also receive financial resources from the budgets of local self-rule units, and if needed, also support from the state budget. They, like the MRTV network, are subjected to restrictions regarding teleshopping (not allowed) and commercials (under Article 51 of the Law on Broadcasting Activity, 7% or 4.2 minutes per programming hour).

Trade broadcasting societies are financed from income generated in the market. Their market position is sanctioned by legal provisions, which enable them to broadcast commercials amounting to 20% or 12 minutes per broadcasting hour and one hour a day of teleshop messages. As for the structure and type of their income, there is only some data. Upon receiving concessions in July of 1998, they were involved in trade and other activities as well, or were a part of enterprises dealing with production, trade, services and other activities. Their annual financial reports for 1999 only show their partial[8][8] actual financial state. Based on Payment Transactions Bureau data (for 136 broadcasters – 29 public enterprises and 107 trade broadcasting societies which handed in their annual financial reports), the total income generated in the broadcasting business in 1999 was 1.3 billion denars, or 15 million German marks, while the costs of work was 1.2 billion denars. Figures show that in this year 17 public broadcasting enterprises and 50 trade broadcasting societies generated profit from their work, eight public and 54 trade societies generated losses, while four public and three trade societies worked on the edge of profitability.

Under the Law on Broadcasting Activity (Article 77), part of the resources from broadcasting tax (10%) are intended for creating and broadcasting public-interest programming on the part of trade broadcasting societies and independent producers. The decision on how to distribute these resources is made by the Government at the Council’s proposal, upon conducting public announcement procedure.[9] Although this is the general orientation for supporting independent radio and TV production which corresponds to European experiences, legal modalities and practice in Macedonia differ considerably. These funds9 are not used to engage radio and TV company resources, but to directly finance program production.

Broadcasters in the public sector are managed by management boards. The Macedonian Parliament, as the founder of MRTV, appoints its management board members and the director general, while for local public broadcasters this jurisdiction lies on the Municipal Councils. The Government of Macedonia is in charge of managing the Public Enterprise Macedonian Broadcasting. In the private sector, all trade broadcasting societies, under the Law on Trade Societies, have their own managers and are legally registered as DOOEL (society with limited responsibility found by one person). The Law on Broadcasting Activity also contains provisions (Articles 10, 11, 17 and 65) which provide for pluralism, limited ownership and prevention of media concentration).

In accordance with legislation regarding the information business, in the field of the press there are no state owned enterprises. State capital (33% in 1998) is present only in the News Publishing Enterprise “Nova Makedonija” A.D. Skopje (which comprises the daily newspapers Nova Makedonija and Vecer, the news and political weekly Puls, and a number of magazines of entertainment and recreational character). Almost all media are market-positioned, and some of them, upon their request and by decision of the Government, receive subsidies from the state budget. At the same time, some media are financed from resources given by foreign associations and from donations.

Generally looking, stabilization of competition may be expected on the Macedonian communication market, primarily between the two sectors (public and private) in the sphere of broadcasters, especially after allocation of concessions for cable television and with bigger breakthrough of satellite channels, but also globally in the entire media market. Internet advertising is also entering the race for the “commercial cake,” and some commercials will slowly start to move from print media and broadcasters to the Internet.

 5.       The Media Legislation

The broadcasting business in the Republic of Macedonia is regulated by the Law on Broadcasting Activity and the Law on Telecommunications, and on certain issues (such as the issue of concession allocation) also by the Law on Concessions.10 The Law on Broadcasting Activity defines the basic conditions of the broadcasting business (production, transmission, broadcast and distribution of radio and TV programming and other content) based on the principles of freedom of information, freedom of receiving and accessing information, freedom of establishing institutions for public information, guaranteed by the Macedonian Constitution (Article 16) and Article 10 of the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The Law also includes certain general principles, rules and obligations ensuing from Council of Europe and European Union acts (declarations, resolutions, directives, recommendations). The Law on Telecommunications regulates the conditions and ways of doing business in the field of telecommunications: building, maintaining and using telecommunication networks and resources; relations between providers and users of their services; competition; providing universal services; issuing concessions and providing telecommunication services through concessions; management, use and control of the radio frequency spectrum; production, import, sale, use and maintenance of radio stations, equipment terminals; and other issues. The Law on Copyrights and Related Rights regulates the rights of authors to their work, and the rights of performers, phonogram, film and script producers, radio and TV organizations and publishers to their performance. The operation of MRTV as the public broadcasting service at national level is regulated by the Law on Macedonian Radio Television, and the operation of local public broadcasters by the Law on Broadcasting Activity and provisions in the Law on Public Enterprises and Law on Local Self-Rule.

Citizens’ interests in the field of broadcasting are represented by the Broadcasting Council, constituted when the Law on Broadcasting Activity was passed (in 1997). Legislation defining the functions of regulatory bodies in Europe differs depending on the characteristics of each individual country (in some countries these bodies have full regulatory powers – they pass rules and other binding regulations for additional regulation of certain issues in the broadcasting business). The scope of their powers is one of the criteria for assessing the level of democracy of a country in the media field. Experience in other countries shows that the legal powers of the Macedonian Broadcasting Council are not on the same level of status and powers, which Council of Europe experts have also indicated during the procedure of passing the Law on Broadcasting Activity (expertise of the 1995 bill).

The field of print media is not regulated by any particular law. Macedonia does not have a law on public information (expertise of a Government bill is underway)11. Provisions of the Law on Public Information of SFRY (1974) and Law on the Essential System of Public Information (1990), which are not in collision with the Macedonian constitution, are in effect.

 6.       Politics and Media

The provisions of the Law on the Essential System of Public Information (1990) constitute a radical turnaround regarding possibilities for establishing print media. All physical persons and legal entities have the right, under equal conditions, to establish and publish media, which opens the way for private initiative in print media. Macedonia (after the Republic gained independence) does not have a single newspaper founded by the state, but it would still be hard to defend the argument that the authorities, as well as the major political parties, do not exert different forms of influence on the press (not taking into account political party papers), which is particularly characteristic during election campaigns.

Unlike the press, in the sphere of broadcasters the Law on Broadcasting Activity (Article 11 Subsection 2) limits the right of political parties and holders of office or political party positions to become founders or co-founders of broadcasters. This Law in Article 32 says that “overall programming shall not one-sidedly serve individual political parties or certain interests,” and in Article 34 that “state bodies and bodies of local self-rule, as well as their representatives, shall not influence radio and television programming, or their work.” However, in practice the situation is different. In a large number of media organizations, both public and private, there is certain “unobtrusive” inclination towards a certain political option, recognizable through bigger presentation of this option/political party and its activities (stands, actions, initiatives, etc.), which is most obvious during election campaigns.12

 7.       Activities of the International Community and Journalists

Several key actors in the international community such as UN, EU, NATO, OSCE and KFOR are present in Macedonia mostly through coverage of global democratic processes and due to the country’s aspirations towards Euro-Atlantic integrations and associations. They are present through projects related to broadcasting, professional assistance and consultation in various fields, financial assistance, as well as training of journalists in the spirit of values of European media policies.

Journalists in Macedonia receive their education in journalism studies and post-graduate communication studies at the University of “Sv. Kiril i Metodij”, and they receive additional training through scholarships from various non-governmental education organizations and associations abroad or in Macedonia. Presently, the journalist profession in Macedonia is divided among three professional associations – Association of Journalists of Macedonia (established in 1946), Independent Association of Journalists, and Forum of Young Journalists. None of them can boast of being very active (with rare examples of the Forum of Young Journalists), let alone of protecting journalists. Of course, journalists in the Republic of Macedonia have their code of journalism and Court of Honor, but they seem to poorly know them and apply them.

 IV. The Broadcasting Sphere Between the Normative and the Actual

 Establishment of the so-called “dual media system” in Macedonia, typical of developed western parliamentary democracies and post-communist eastern European systems13, promotes – in addition to public broadcasting which is responsible for general social interest and adapted to requirements for independence, political neutrality, diversity and quality of information – also a certain limited level of commercialization, which is considered to be an essential condition for general democratization and development of media.

What are the prerequisites for choosing this concept? Proceeding from the existing situation in the media sphere, primarily the high level of structural differentiation of media (especially private radio and television stations), development of media centers, the successful battle for media autonomy and specialization (a process that was more or less completed even before the normative framework of the system was set down), what seemed most acceptable was a “creative” application of the mixed dual concept. Of course, this does not exclude problems in the methodology of installing the system in practice, especially in “finding the right solutions” to incorporate the already existing media (public and private) into the normative framework. In such an environment, models such as public services or a commercial model would cause non-functioning of the system, its mystification and abuse. In addition, global political changes in Macedonia also had a tendency towards establishing a media system according to the dominant western European dual character of media.

The system in its essence cherishes the principle of plurality, a competitive confrontation of two, or even better, three subjects: public broadcasting service, local public radio and television stations, and private media. It meets, normatively and declaratively, the basic prerequisites for media functioning in conditions of parliamentary democracy and market-driven economy. It is precisely this that raises the question of why an analysis of broadcasting legislation? Contemporary processes and tendencies in this sphere insist more and more on “restricted” regulation of broadcasters and “complete” deregulation of print media which, by itself, imposes the need to re-examine the compatibility of legal solutions with these requirements, their upgrading and, of course, harmonization with internationally accepted standards. Still, what seems to be a more important fact is that elements in the so-called paternalistic communication model of legitimizing political power can be recognized in the practical use of different normative solutions in the Macedonian media system.

We define the formal analysis of the media system as being a whole, which is composed of several separate analyses that reconstruct all phases in its development: analysis of conditions and activities for constituting a plural media space; typology of interest within this media space; analysis of subjects involved in the system, their mutual relations and intensity of action. The legislation research pattern encompasses detailed development of elements which, by their character and dynamics, determine the quality of functioning of the media system. The subject of separate elaboration is not the structure of the system by itself, but the structure which produces hybrid solutions in practice. The pattern contains the following elements: (1) legal status of media; (2) media financing; (3) media editorial policy; and (4) media programming standards. In addition, in order to have a complete picture of the functioning of the broadcast sphere, the analysis will separately encompass aspects of pluralism and prevention of media concentration, the issue of frequency allocation for the work of private radio and TV stations, supervision, administrative and judicial procedure, and the powers of the Broadcasting Council as an independent body representing the interests of Macedonian citizens in the performance of broadcasting activity.

 1.       The Reality of the Broadcasting Concept

Several key moments determine the meaning of broadcasters in Macedonia in profiling the media policy concept. The first, and most important, is choosing the model that defines a framework of the mass communication system in society; the second is the legal dimension of the system, made operational through a number of legal acts, and third, the specific media context as the prerequisite for professional media expression.

Normatively and declaratively, all fundamental legal acts regulating this matter14 were passed by January 1998, thereby practically meeting all formal conditions for the functioning of modern broadcasting. However, in practical application, the theoretical model framework suffered the first failure. Right after concessions were given to private radio and television stations, two services practically swapped places. Looking through numbers only, the existing broadcast communication structure is composed of the public service, which includes Macedonian Radio Television and 29 local public radio and television stations, on one hand, and 111 private radio and television stations (two national and 49 local television stations, and two national and 58 local radio stations), on the other. It need not be emphasized whether and how much the “dominance” of the public service is threatened by competing private media at national and local level.

Of course, this balance of power has its genesis. In the beginning, from the time when the Republic of Macedonia gained independence until 1997, due to the lack of legal regulation, the media system functioned according to the principles of automatism, pragmatism and voluntarism. The media legal vacuum enabled the appearance of around 250 private broadcasters15 with undefined status, without clear concept and physiognomy, without elementary technical and technological conditions for work, with freely chosen and illegally used broadcast frequencies. This chaos on the airwaves forced the state to apply unpopular measures – a “moratorium,” or closure of a certain number of broadcasters. However, this was done according to some very dubious (unknown to the public) and undefined criteria16. At that time, only a certain, small number of private radio and television stations were closed (by confiscation of their equipment), mostly in larger towns in the Republic, which of course did not improve the chaotic state on the airwaves.

The first real changes in this artificially created “media electronic card” were brought about by the Law on Broadcasting Activity, when the monistic media concept of state media was finally abandoned, both formally and legally, and its diversification started. Institutional definition of the status of public broadcasting service and allocation of the first frequencies to private broadcasters clearly defined and re-defined the subjects – the carriers of the plural media system. However, this did not solve problems in the broadcast sphere. Today, pirate radio and television stations, whose number is hard to know exactly due to the daily dynamics of their appearance and collapse, are still broadcasting. It is precisely they, directly or indirectly, who influence the character, structure, dynamics and scope of the media supply, the conduct of officially registered media, and their adherence to the laws. Through them, the inconsistencies, flaws and declarations, among others, of a large number of normative solutions are proven in practice.

 2.       Promotion of the Broadcasting Model in Practice

If we agree that the central research problem is analysis of the system’s dysfunctionality in practice, it means that we should first locate the causes of dysfunctionality. They should be sought in both the new and the old redefined ideas, values, methods, resources, and techniques for creating existing media organizational structures, directly in conflict with the actual media potentials and capacities to implement them.

On the list of “democratic” ideas, particular attention is drawn to those legal solutions which represent (or should represent) not the basis, but the “upgrading” of the process of plurality of the media space, something that maybe even developed western European countries wish for. This is especially the case with the broadcasting tax, which is paid by the population to finance the public broadcasting service, from which 10% of resources are set aside (or taken) to finance projects in public interest, resources for which only private broadcasters or independent producers may apply. Or, the possibility of financing local public radio and television stations from several sources (from broadcasting tax, from advertising, and from local self-rule budget), which in practice has turned into a financial collapse and a struggle for survival. These and similar paradoxes of Macedonian media legislation are a result or a consequence of, first of all, a lack of a realistic assessment of the level of economic, technological, cultural and political transformation in this sphere.

In addition, it became clear very quickly that numerous issues were not precisely regulated by the law (such as the right to advertising, the right to re-broadcast foreign programming, etc.), that certain issues were not mutually harmonized, actually that they were resolved in different ways by different laws (for example, which institutions are responsible for allocating and withdrawing concessions), that certain issues were unclearly and imprecisely defined (the issue of trade broadcasting societies as special enterprises), and that some were not legally envisioned at all (lack of any provisions on protection of the right to reply and correction). This has resulted in confusion and also bitterness of a great many broadcasters, and has forced them, consciously or unconsciously, to violate certain legal solutions.

At the same time, the fact that there is large number of media (especially private radio and television stations) was defined by the state as a “high degree of democratization and plurality” in the media sphere. If we judge by the words of John Keane (1992:14) that: “the democratic quality of media is an everlasting project without a final solution…,” it seems that Macedonia tried to complete the project straight away. It has a total of 148 broadcasting subjects who satisfy the needs of a little less than two million citizens of the Republic of Macedonia17. Compared to the fact that only around 60% of available resources are used, this policy of the authorities (the Government gives a green light as to whom concessions will be allocated to) has proved problematic and counterproductive. Practice warns that quantity does not bring quality. There is an increasing number of private radio and television stations with very low quality of programming content. What has led to this situation? In order to satisfy all candidates for broadcasting concessions18, and alleviate the consequences of the previous legal vacuum as much as possible, concessions were given even to broadcasters (generally in smaller towns) which are practically working with minimal programming, organizational and technical standards. Knowing the limited capacities of the economy as one of the main financiers of private media (because private media mostly live off advertising), it is obvious that the line of least resistance was taken and that it was left to the market to make a natural selection and “throw out of the game” all surplus (those with lower ratings).

However, the problem is not only the large number of, for example, specialized music radio stations, among which some are very good (such as a jazz radio station or a classical music radio station). The problem are the low standards (programming, technical, staffing) at which the majority of them operate (especially in smaller towns). What kind of private television stations are they if they broadcast only series (low-budget) and feature movies of very poor technical quality (for which they do not pay copyrights) and commercials? Or, television stations whose central features are shows such as “greetings and messages” (for birthday celebrations, births, weddings, etc.).19 It is true that commercial media have to adjust to the principles and laws of the market, but at what price? Is the state here not showing its double face, first as a mother by allocating frequencies, and then as a stepmother by withdrawing them.20

 3.       The Subjects of the Broadcasting System

The subjects participating in the communication sphere do not have the same role and function, and the lawmakers have clearly separated them. Their influence is different and directly dependent on their character. They proceed from different positions, but they still complement each other. They build their “credibility” on a structure in which independence, on one hand, and responsibility, on the other, are mutually interwoven, which leads to development of pluralism of different opinions, stands, values and interests. However, is this what it is actually like in practice?

 a)       Public Broadcasting Service

Conceptually, editing in the broadcasting sphere is based on the universal right of “public good” or “public interest.” The lawmakers have defined it as the satisfaction of general social interests and adaptation to requests for informative, educational, cultural, scientific, sports, music, entertainment and other content of interest to the life and work of the citizens of the Republic of Macedonia.21 Practically, it is accepted that the public service bases its activity on the principles of ‘universality, diversity, editorial independence, social responsibility and justification, cultural quality and identity, and non-profit character’ (McQuail, 1994:127).

How do these principles function in the framework of the public national service Macedonian Radio Television? As far as the postulate of MRTV universality is concerned, broadcasting signal of its first (television) channel territorially covers almost the entire territory of the country (around 96% of territory), and it is attempting to send quality signal to all citizens of the Republic. However, looking from the aspect of radio and television production, or diversity, things get a little complicated. Practically, unsuccessful “attempts” have been made to produce programming that satisfies the different interests, needs and tastes of the public, not to speak about media social responsibility to the auditorium, or cultural quality and identity (or care for national identity). There has been an obvious downfall in the quality of programming content, especially television, and its replacement with various quizzes, luck games (Lotto, joker), soap operas and “ancient” feature movies.22 This destitution and lack of inventiveness and creativity in the program structure is basically a result of fluctuation of quality journalist staff (which have practically “defected” to private media), and is directly connected to the postulate of this organization’s editorial policy and its financial independence.

The station’s editorial policy is conducted by the Management Board, Board for Control of Material and Financial Work, MRTV Director General, Directors and Editors in Chief of Macedonian Radio and Macedonian Television (appointed by the Director General), as well as program councils for radio and television. Due to the fact that the Director General – “manager” of MRTV, and Management Board are appointed by the Macedonian Parliament, influence of the state and incumbent authorities on the station’s editorial policy cannot be avoided.[10][10] The public and the “defected” journalists have recognized them to be spokespersons for the incumbent (government, state option) policy, which destroys the station’s credibility. Those who resisted this option and tried to initiate communication between different social groups, were simply excluded.24 There has been no room for bearers of the role of a free and critical instrument of democratic debate, which implies examination of political stands, analysis of programming priorities, and social consequences of proposed policy. On the issue of debates on various current issues of interest to the general public, the role of promoters of different views and ideas was taken over by private broadcasters (especially national level broadcasters, although local broadcasters are not lagging behind either), and therefore MRTV has practically come out the loser. Attempts are made, but they are unsuccessful. Programs are unskillfully directed in advance, which the ordinary citizen cannot miss.

This kind of participation of the authorities in running the public service, installed through this media organization’s leadership, clearly shows that the system of unconcealed state paternity still functions in practice. On the other hand, in trying to maintain its “independence” at least declaratively, MRTV has practically voluntarily transformed itself into a “commercial service,” persistently claiming that this is in the interest of the general public. If we add to this the mimicry regarding the station’s resources for work, then it is completely clear that this is actually an ‘attempt of state control of television, on one hand, and uncontrolled commercialization on the other’ (Luthar, 1992:178). The effects are devastating. Torn between proclaimed editorial independence and direct or indirect influence of politics (authorities) and economy (capital), Macedonian Radio Television is falling into its own trap. The dilemma of whether to be an advocate of the public or an apparatus of the authorities is resolved in a simple way through political instrumentalization, which proves a high level of its own monistic orthodoxy.

MRTV receives financial resources for its work from the broadcasting tax paid by citizens, from marketing services, from sale of its own program, from sponsorship and donations, as well as from resources provided by the state for special programs (for emigrants and other residents living in neighboring countries, in Europe and in other continents). The service has a legal right to broadcast commercials – 7% per broadcasting hour, which is usually not adhered to. It is precisely due to this 7% of commercials that MRTV is holding a financial monopoly by reducing prices to the minimum, which private broadcasting consider, to put it mildly, an act of unfair competition. By doing this, MRTV not only loses the character of a non-profit institution, but directly attacks the financial system of private broadcasters.

In contrast, public local radio and television stations are a phenomenon by themselves. They are a hostage of the normative framework of the broadcasting model, which could not (or did not want to) precisely calculate and anticipate all the consequences of the manipulative relationship of politics towards practicing media policy. As things stand now, it seems that the issue of their status does not go beyond daily politics. It has simply been forgotten that these 29 local radio and television stations have been operating for more than 30 years, not to speak about European development tendencies shown in local public broadcasting.

The lawmakers have, so to speak, thrown these subjects out of the normative framework of the media system. First they gave them a “temporary status,” enabling local power holders to fight over them, and then they put them at the mercy of the Government. As local self-rule showed no interest (hoping to form their own media as a characteristic of municipal status), or was unable to agree on taking over the founding rights to local broadcasters (due to political polarization of interest between Municipal Councils and Mayors), the Government acted. As a result of all this, today we have only five local radio and television stations with resolved legal status, while the remaining 24 are under direct and open influence of the authorities.25

These legal complications are also reflected in their financing. The lawmakers made another poor choice in this regard by enabling local radio stations to have three sources of financing (from broadcasting tax, from advertising, and from budgets of local authorities). The first source is functioning (this is only 5% of broadcasting tax, which does not meet even the basic requirements for normal work), the second is functioning with a lot of difficulty (due to competition of local private broadcasters), and the third has completely backfired. Due to the unresolved status of broadcasters, the municipalities are not participating (or are participating on occasionally) in their financing. For them, this is a burden that should be avoided because obligations of the municipalities themselves are not defined precisely enough.

When all this is added up, it is superfluous to speak about programming standards of these radio stations. Private local radio stations are their competition, but they are also destroying them. The only surprising thing is the eternal optimism of the employees not only regarding work, but also regarding establishing of television studios. Their persistence and requests to the state to finally resolve their status, which they are united on, should not be neglected.

 b)       Alternative Commercial Media

We base our analysis of the commercial broadcasting sector on the following hypothesis: alternative media can be considered a significant, perhaps even a crucial factor in stimulating the process of institutionalization in the broadcasting sphere. They have been the critics of the present situation, the initiators and “creators” of establishment of a legal framework of the media system, and also the carriers of its deregulation.

What is the phenomenon of alternative-commercial media based on? Thanks to specific changes in the political and economic structure of society, they started making a breakthrough in the media sphere back in the early 90s, spreading like concentric circles in the area of the whole Republic. Although their activity is basically determined by the rules of the “market of ideas,” they have still succeeded in imposing a “plural” conception of the information and communication process, directly participating in the installation of institutionalized values and norms in broadcasting, and in setting up interactive relations in the organizational and communication network. Hence, they can be regarded as the bearers of reform, reorganization and redistribution of potentials in the broadcasting sphere.

When they fit them into the institutional framework, the lawmakers defined their operation by the following principles: (1) universality and regionalism (the first is an obligation of national broadcasters to cover at least 70% of Macedonia’s population with their signal, and the second is an obligation of local broadcasters to cover a specific area), (2) diversity (obligation to broadcast program content on events related to the specific area of broadcasting), (3) specialization (developing specialized program content, such as music, jazz or classic radio, which operates very successfully within the system); (4) minimum program time (for the national level, the minimum is 18 hours of daily programming for radio, and eight hours for TV; and for the local level, 10 hours for radio, and three for TV); (5) editorial independence (especially being independent of subjects that participate in political life – political parties); and (6) financial relation with the market (including the possibility of receiving a certain amount of funds from the broadcasting tax paid by the population).

Out of all these principles, financing is causing the biggest headaches. The first on the list is the issue of receiving funds from the broadcasting tax for so-called “public interest projects.” All activities regarding allocation of the famous 10% of the broadcasting tax for private radio and television stations and independent producers are timed with such dynamics that there is almost no place for surprises. The Broadcasting Council has defined the key issues (topics and problems) of public interest (by making a detailed feasibility study) and has already announced two public competitions for allocation of funds (the second is underway and is waiting for a green light from the Government). It is not important that practically no one knows what is implied by the term “public interest,” and whether this issue is defined anywhere at all (actually, it is not clearly defined).[11][11] The majority of these projects have already been implemented and aired by broadcasters.

However, the “idea” is collapsing, so to speak, because it lacks an important element – transparency. In addition, the most important subject in the whole game has been forgotten – the citizens – who know nothing about these projects, and even less that they are the ones who are providing the resources for their implementation. Whether someone has seen or heard these “specially” financed programs, we better not ask. We also should not ask whether the public service has aired some of these projects (for it is entitled to do so without any financial compensation) in its programs, because it has not.27 And what is really devastating, even the private concessionaires who have received some of these resources are dissatisfied with this kind of “help” in their work, because by competing for these projects they lose valuable time, which hurts both their programming and their viewers/listeners. At the same time, we will not go wrong if we say that the huge funds raised and distributed this way are not proportionate to the quality of what is obtained as the final result. Of course, with honorable exceptions. Knowing the quality of the media (especially local), the question is what quality can be expected (except if synopses for projects are not written by professionals who, of course, have to be paid by broadcasters).

In addition, it is no secret that some private broadcasters were counting on paying at least part of the annual concession fee28 from these funds, which, when translated, means that a certain number of the projects they applied with, had previously been implemented using their own resources or resources received from various associations and organizations, which is very hard to control in view of the large number of concessionaires and the number of projects they had applied with. Not to speak about the false modesty of a certain number of broadcasters, who applied with more than 40 projects (there have been examples of broadcasters applying with as many as 99 projects – Radio Kanal 77 – a national concessionaire), and their “impudence” of applying with programs from their regular production as projects (programs which were regularly on air during the competition procedure). All these concrete examples, unfortunately, speaks volumes about the erosion of the idea of boosting the quality of private broadcasters’ programming production in this way.

Second on the list is the issue of advertising. Commercial broadcasting subjects are allowed 20% of commercials per broadcasting hour, a little more than the public service (it gets 7%), which of course makes them unsatisfied. If we know that advertising is one of the main sources of financing for them (not counting public interest projects which not everyone gets), parallel broadcasting of commercials on the public service is considered an act of unfair competition, and even the direct cause of closure of some private broadcasters.

Besides this, the legal provisions on advertising are not precisely defined. It is unclear both to the lawmakers and the broadcasters what happens if this 20% is not used in the given time – can it be carried over to the next broadcasting hour, especially in light of the fact that it is legally specified that commercials shall not be aired during programs in a way that violates their integrity (Article 54 of the Law on Broadcasting Activity), that news programs shorter than 30 minutes shall not be interrupted by commercials (Article 55), and that feature-length movies may be interrupted only after 45 minutes of broadcasting (Article 56). These open dilemmas burden both the broadcasters and the Broadcasting Council, which is supposed to control implementation of the law. That is why it happens, more or less, that the legal maximum of 20% is exceeded without any real possibility to punish the violators.

 c) Alternative Pirate Media

Some private media have not managed to fit into the institutional framework of the media model. But this has not prevented them from continuing to air their program as pirates. Namely, using the imprecision of the legislation and the slowness of the judicial authorities in implementing laws, they have, which is paradoxical but true, been given a “privileged” position. Decisions handed down by the responsible inspectors (of the Ministry of Transport and Communications) to cease working, or reports to the misdemeanor court, even pressure of being cut off,29 are trifles compared to the fact that they have not paid the state a “single penny” for illegal use of frequencies. On top of this, they receive an almost equal share in the advertising “cake,” because the economy is obviously more interested in whether someone watches and listens to a certain station, than whether or not the station has a concession to work.

Fortunately, these legislative imprecisions were corrected. In April of this year, the Macedonian Parliament passed amendments to the Law on Telecommunications, entitling Ministry of Transport and Communication inspectors to confiscate equipment from pirate broadcasters (up until then only judicial bodies were able to do that), which in effect, not only formally, prevents them from broadcasting. This provides conditions for maximum efficiency in sanctioning illegal broadcasting stations, and it should put this case ad acta.

 d) Lessons and Messages

Generally looking, particularly concerning financing, legal status, editorial policy and program standards of the subjects in the broadcasting system, all contradictions are surfacing regarding the relationship between the normative and the actual, due to which all ideas of the dual model have simply failed. These are “hybrid” solutions, for which it is hard or impossible to find similar examples in theory or practice or western European or eastern European countries. Normatively, the financial system is built on the basis of mutual interweaving of two opposed principles: distribution of the broadcasting tax, on one hand, and the right to advertising, on the other, which partly commercializes the public service, and also imposes a public character on the private service. These institutional solutions have in practice quickly proven to be dysfunctional.30

We should single out the public broadcasting service (MRTV) as the central pillar in the media space, whose identity is constructed or deconstructed on the principle of appointment of the Director General. However, the main problem is not that the director of the station is appointed and dismissed by the Macedonian Parliament, but the fact that s/he directly depends on the influence and capriciousness of the parliamentarians and the balance of power in the highest legislative house (which happened in 1996 and 1998 as a result of changes in the political structure of power). Precisely due to this, in the changeable political ambiance such as the one in Macedonia, it will be more and more difficult to recognize a vision, a common motto on which public broadcasting will build its independence and identity.

Without going further into the (already elaborated) specifics of the media system, it is clear that the card which has been played in the relationship between the normative and the actual, without a real context, results in the consequential conduct of the media themselves in the system. That the situation is not all that hopeless is shown by the efforts of, first of all the Broadcasting Council, in animating and activating the local and foreign professional and scientific public, private and public broadcasters, and the citizens in initiating a process of amending the existing “problematic” legal solutions, harmonizing them mutually, precisely defining declarative solutions, and even the possibility, for example, of passing a separate law for local public broadcasting enterprises.

What are the messages: it is essential to amend the Law on Broadcasting Activity and to harmonize it with other laws which cover this field directly or indirectly, with clear definition of the status and jurisdiction of the Broadcasting Council. Also to amend the law on Macedonian Radio Television, chiefly in the direction of strengthening the station’s position, clearly defining its obligations, and directing it towards public interest activities. Thereby, the state influence would be more or less successfully absorbed, and objections regarding uncontrolled commercialization of the service annulled. As far as the issue of financing of public interest projects is concerned, everything indicates the need to modify the percentage set aside for this purpose, so that we do not have the public service falling apart because of the commercial service. In that regard, in order to establish a balance, it would be possible to reduce the advertising percentage for the public service until its final abolishment. If the lawmakers fail to do this, it may happen that practice will impose it (especially with the introduction of cable distribution), which would not be something new in the Macedonian media environment.

 V. Conclusion

The Macedonian media system lacks substantial and methodological aspects of implementation of a global social and political context. Insistence at any cost on application of “abstract” and formal criteria places media subjects and institutions in a static, even regressive context. This yields only partial, even counterproductive results. The media and citizens are caught in a spider’s web in which false hopes exist for development of creative media expression.

To avoid this trap, a model should be created which would transcend static quality, strict institutional quality, and formal approach to legal solutions. An approach involving dynamics, complexity, multi-levels, cultural determinants, innovations in the system. Naturally, it must be preceded by a detailed analysis of what has been achieved so far, and the consequences of such rigid application of legislation. In redefining the model, the lawmakers must respect the dynamics and flexibility of the media sphere, its innovative power which may converge into an evolutionary process of political transformation. The media are bearers of possible qualitative changes of global values, norms, institutional structures of the system. However, only when the need for redefining media legislation is ripe can we say that institutional roads are open for development of new plural democracy.

Is it possible and if so, why should the ground be prepared for changes? There are many unsatisfied media in the broadcasting sphere which may, objectively, influence changes, a whole army of them. But the question is whether they are capable of doing so, if they are dominated by old thought patterns. They must answer the question not of whom they are against, but what and whom they are for. To be strong in their ethically justified position, they must renounce or resist the power (especially management staff in the public service), which others (politics) are falsely giving them. This is feasible only with awareness of the rights, as well as the obligations that they have. They should fight because their status has been violated, their name and acquired privileges, but also because they are responsible for cultural communication and obliged to establish and cherish this kind of mass communication (this is true both of the public and the private broadcasting sector).

The empirical reality indicates the need for parallel political “emancipation” of both the creators of the media model and the subjects in broadcasting organizations, because it has become evident that possession of power (chiefly political power) of the former and the impotence and stubbornness of the latter is not such an advantage after all. Its misuse often does more damage than good. Hence, it is not important to have media available as much as it is to know how to use them the right way – to assess their nature and compatibility bearing in mind the numerous characteristics of the auditorium.

Finally, again the key issue of how to redefine the dual broadcasting system in the Republic of Macedonia? It must be based on the following four postulates: (a) analysis of political changes in the wider social (especially value and political-cultural) and political context; (b) encompassing all subjects in the media sphere regardless of their formal status; (c) problem-oriented approach which reveals the conflict and dynamics of the active and resistant participants in the media sphere; as well as (d) monitoring changes in the media sphere in a different way – by differentiating different levels and quality of the media. This gives the real pattern of functioning of an efficient media system.

If these principles had been approached using the “step by step” principle, it would have been realistic to expect a democratic fight of rules, criteria, forms, discourses and values in the broadcasting sphere, instead of experimenting. In forming the structure of the “new” model, all its main protagonists must take part in it – the media and the public. Today’s democracy requires a system with credibility in which media will learn to critically observe everything that happens in the broad environment, and the citizens will be actively involved in decision-making on all issues and problems of public interest. This means that the lawmakers must “allow” a little more than one-sided media communication – a participation system as a step towards two-way communication. If, even then, they fall for mutual senseless confrontation, they will enter a vicious circle from which both will emerge as losers. All that is left then is a utopian vision of equality of all subjects participating in the media space.

Literature:

• 1.        Against the Piracy in Macedonian Air (1999), international conference, Broadcasting Council of the Republic of Macedonia and Phare programmes, Skopje. 

• 2.        Bilten na Sovetot za radiodifuzija (1998), Sovet za radiodifuzija, Skopje, no.1, 2.

• 3.        Bilten na Sovetot za radiodifuzija (1999), Sovet za radiodifuzija, Skopje, no.3, 4. 

• 4.        Bilten na Sovetot za radiodifuzija na Republika Makedonija (2000), Sovet za radiodifuzija, Skopje, no. 5, 6, 7.

• 5.        Best S., Kelner D. (1996), Postmoderna teorija, Kultura, Skopje.

• 6.        Buddermeier Heinz (1996) Življenje v umetnih svetovih, Inštitut za trajnostni razoj, Ljubljana.

• 7.        Geoffrey Haris, Spark David (1993), Practical Newspaper Reporting, Oxford, Focal Press.

• 8.        Gruevski, Tome (1995), Sovremeniot pečat vo Makedonija 1944 - 1994, NIP Studentski zbor, Skopje.

• 9.        Djordjević, Toma (1988), Komunikacija i vlast - prilog kritici političke komunikacije, Ideja, Belgrade.

• 10.     Downing, John (1984), Radical Media, The Political Experience of Alternative Communication, South End Press.

• 11.     Holsinger L. Ralph (1987), Media Law, Random House, New York.

• 12.     Javnoto mislenje 1998 godina vo Republika Makedonija (1999), istraživački izveštaj, Institut za sociološki i političko-pravni istražuvanja, Skopje.

• 13.     Kean, John (1992), Mediji in demokracija, Znanstveno in publicistično središče, Ljubljana.

• 14.     Kunčik Mihael, Cipfel Astrid (1988), Voved vo naukata za publicistika i komunikacii, Fridrich Ebert Foundation, Skopje Office.

• 15.     Lokalni izbori ‘96 vo Republika Makedonija (1997), zbornik, Institut za sociološki i političko-pravni istražuvanja, Skopje.

• 16.     Luthar, Breda (1992), Čas televizije, Znanstveno in publicistično središče, Ljubljana.

• 17.     Media & Democracy (1998), Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg.

• 18.     Mediji, etika in deontologija (1996), zbornik, Media, Ljubljana.

• 19.     Mediumi i izbori (1996), priračnik, Evropski institu za mediumi i Institut za sociološki i političko-pravni istražuvanja, Skopje.

• 20.     McQuail, Denis (1994), Stari kontinent - novi mediji, NOVA, Belgrade.

• 21.     McQuail, Denis (1994), Mass Communication Theory, SAGE Publications, London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi.

• 22.     Mislenjeto na gledačite i slušatelite za izvestuvanjeto na elektronskite mediumi za parlamentarnite izbori ‘98 (1998), istraživački izveštaj, Sovet za radiodifuzija i Institut za sociološki i političko-pravni istražuvanja, Skopje.

• 23.     Nedelkovski Živki (1992), Politika kako komunikacija, NIO Stu­den­tski zbor, Skopje.

• 24.     Nineski, Blagoja (2000), Pečatenite i elektronskite mediumi vo Makedonija, Društvo za novinarska, izdavačka i grafička dejnost Tribina makedonska, Skopje.

• 25.     Price E. Monroe (1995), Television, the Public Sphere, and National Identity, Clarendon Press, Oxford.

• 26.     Paletz, David L. in Robert M. Entman (1981), Media, Power, Politics, New York, The Free Press.

• 27.     Parlamentarni izbori ‘98 vo Republika Makedonija (1999), zbornik, Institut za sociološki i političko-pravni istražuvanja, Skopje.

• 28.     Spark, Colin (1997), Hildy Johnson: the vanishing serious press, in Peter Dahlagren, Colin Sparks (ed): “Communication and Citizensihip”, Routledge, London and New York.

• 29.     Splihal, Slavko (1992), Izgubljene utopije?, Znanstveno i publicistično središče, Ljubljana.

• 30.     Zibert, S. Fred, Piterson Tiodor, Šram Vilgur (1994), Četiri teorii za pečatot, PNID, STEP, Skopje

• 31.     Šušnjić, Djuro (1995), Otpori kritičkom mišljenju, Cigoja štampa, Belgrade

• 32.     Trček, Joze (1994), Medosebno komuniciranje in kontaktna kultura, Didakta, Radovljica.

• 33.     33.  Vreg, France (1990), Demokratično komuniciranje, Založba Obzorje, Maribor.

• 34.     Workshop on Broadcasting Regulations (2000), Broadcasting Council of Republic of Macedonia and Council of Europe, Skopje.

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