A Genuine PBS or Mimicry:

Development of the Public Broadcasting Service in the Republic of Macedonia

By Vesna Sopar

Any attempt to speak up openly about the public broadcasting service in the Republic of Macedonia (RM) creates an “unpleasant feeling.” In an effort to clearly define media policy in this sector, many discussions, seminars and panels have been organized. The circle closed with the passing of basic legal acts and the transformation of a monopolistic, state-run broadcasting organization into a public service. In this way, more or less, “formal” prerequisites were provided for the service to function in line with European democratic standards, in particular with regard to legal status, financing and management, structure and quality of programming. However, the issue was practically closed with that, while problems in implementing this model in practice were left for “better days.” There are a number of reasons for this, in all segments and on all levels of the media system. In order to easily locate the “painful” points, which are the key to the (un)successful development of public service, we need to examine its institutional matrix.

Thirty outlets broadcast public interest radio and TV programming in the Macedonian media market: Macedonian Radio Television (MRTV) with five radio and three TV channels, and 29 local radio stations, of which 12 also broadcast TV program. The work of the national service is regulated by the Law on Establishment of the Public Enterprise Macedonian Radio Television and the Law on Broadcasting Activity, while the work of local services, in addition to these laws, is also regulated by provisions in the Law on Local Self-Rule and Law on Public Enterprises. Management is entrusted upon steering boards and the director general, who are appointed for MRTV by the Macedonian Parliament, and for local services by Municipal Councils. Legally speaking, overall programming policy cannot one-sidedly serve certain political parties and interests, and state bodies and local self-rule bodies cannot influence the program and work of radio and television. The main source of financing is the broadcasting tax or subscription fee, which is paid by the citizens (out of the total amount collected, 67.5 percent goes to MRTV and 5 percent to local broadcasters). Additional sources of financing are marketing services (limited to 7 percent per hour of programming), sale of produced programs, sponsorship and donations, revenue from local self-rule units’ budgets, as well as resources from the Macedonian Budget for financing special programs (for emigrants and foreign public). Speaking from the viewpoint of program, the public service meets the needs for informative, cultural, scientific, educational (in particular Third Radio Program), economic, entertainment (such as Radio 103 – music youth radio) and sports content of interest to the lives and work of the citizens. The public service has an obligation to broadcast in the Macedonian language, but also in the languages of the national minorities (on the second radio and TV programs), as well as special programs for informing and promoting ties with emigrants and other Macedonian citizens living in Europe and other continents (Radio Biljana). Territorially speaking, the national broadcasting service covers almost the entire territory of the country (the first TV channel covers 96 percent, the second 94 percent, and the third, satellite channel 50 percent).

All in all, one would say an “ideal model.” Problems appear in practicing these different normative solutions, and we particularly recognize them in the aspects of legal status, financing, editorial policy and media standards of the public service. It is true that during the quest for a democratic informative system, the public broadcasting service had to “survive” deep structural changes accompanied by many concrete problems and crises, but it should not have “played” with professional media expression, which had been built painstakingly over many years. Who allowed a structural collapse and commercialization of the media offer? Where did good journalists and technical staff “disappear”? Why was communication with the public neglected, and even terminated, and empty space filled by incumbent government officials? There are many more questions and it would be easier if the answers were not known. Unfortunately, the answers are obvious, but there is no one to hear them. Let us go in order.

The modeling of a broadcasting service in the spirit of democratic pluralism started back in 1991 when, by decision of the Macedonian Parliament, then Radio Television Skopje was defined as a public enterprise. This did not bring significant changes to the formal and programming structure, but it did raise issues of a financial nature caused by many years of litigation over the amount and defining of the broadcasting tax. While this “dead heat” was going on, the citizens were not paying the broadcasting subscription fee, and the public service, completely financially exhausted, was hardly able to fulfil its fundamental purpose. The problem was normatively solved only in 1997 by the Law on Broadcasting Activity, but the consequences can be felt even today in the organizational, production, staffing and technical fields.

In an effort to alleviate what cannot be alleviated, the lawmakers by the same law gave the public service the right to broadcast commercials as a way of boosting revenues, probably without thinking that they were thus “directly” participating in its partial, but still alarming commercialization, nor that this right would be abused. In the meantime, by reducing broadcasting tax revenues by 10 percent (for public interest projects and private broadcasters), the public character of the broadcasting service was made relative and part of its independence was taken away, while higher programming standards were imposed on private broadcasters, which can be seen in practice everyday. Private broadcasters have been reacting loudly to the monopoly of the public service in marketing services, the private service is dissatisfied with insufficient revenues from broadcasting tax, and both the former and the latter have been attacking public interest projects. It is becoming clearer and clearer that these are not the right solutions or that conditions are not ripe for their implementation.

Unfortunately, this financial “dubiousness,” like an avalanche, brings other problems. These include the issue of achieving the main public service functions, in particular from the aspect of diversity and quality of programming, and presenting issues from all fields and for all individuals and social groups in the community. If during the first several years of public service functioning, one could speak of an increased physical scope of programming (as a consequence of its separation from the former joint Yugoslav Radio Television system), today the erosion of the programming offer is so obvious that even ordinary citizens are protesting. Besides this, the lawmakers have forgotten to precisely define the ratio between different types of programming and have thus enabled imbalance and too much of one kind of program (informative and political) at the expense of another (educational). It is even more terrible that formerly popular informative programs on current events have been replaced by soap operas and quizzes, not to speak of ancient feature films. The first serious warning that this would happen is the dismissal and suspension (happening even today) of a certain number of good journalists, primarily those who refused to be mouthpieces for the incumbent authorities. Of course, explanation for these moves taken by the public service should be sought in editorial policy, or more precisely, in the appointment of the broadcaster’s director general and steering board.

This means that the next issue on the list is the staffing and ideological issue, which refers to the bearers of the entire production process, but most of all to journalists and technical staff. Expressed through figures, this is an entire small army with around 2,000 staff members and around 200 freelancers, although following the passing of the Law on the Public Enterprise Macedonian Radio Television (in 1998), the picture has drastically changed. However, irrespective of the number, today’s situation shows a serious “fluctuation” of journalistic staff in other, first of all, private broadcasting organizations. Therefore, it is no surprise that there is louder and louder insistence on undertaking concrete measures to reinforce the journalistic staff, of course provided the public service “wants” a quality radio and television program and can afford to allow expression of pluralism of different and opposed stands and opinions.

In the staffing pyramid, a special place is held by the executives, the director general and steering board, as the public service’s core of independence and responsibility, which creates or “should create” the organization’s policy and identity. By this, we practically open the most painful issue, the issue of legal status of the public broadcasting service. Why? Because this issue is directly responsible for all unresolved normative, financial, material, organizational and technical problems, for all political, ideological, cultural and philosophical dilemmas. As things stand, in this country the identity of the public broadcasting service rests and “trips” over the principle of appointment of director general. The fact that s/he is appointed and removed by the authorities (Macedonian Parliament) means nothing but direct influence of the Parliament and dependence on its capriciousness and current balance of political forces in power. The very procedure of appointment is not a problem, as similar solutions are applied in other countries in Europe. The problem is that editorial policy literally reflects present politics, especially in election time. Hence, it is no surprise that no one is able to recognize a vision, a common motto on the basis of which the public service would build its identity.

To make the tragedy even greater, all management bodies in the public service are very well mutually linked and have such powers that it is practically impossible to do anything outside their influence and influence of the authorities. The steering board, appointed and removed by the Macedonian Parliament, passes the Statute, program of operation and program of development, determines policy, annual financial plan and report, and makes decisions regarding internal organization of the public service. The director general is appointed and removed by the Macedonian Parliament. S/he represents the broadcasting service, ensures implementation of decisions and conclusions of the steering board, participates in implementation of the programs of operation and development, and once a year submits a report to the Parliament. Directors and editors in chief of production sections, upon proposal by the director general, are appointed and removed by the steering board. There are also program councils (which were still not formed by mid-1999), whose duty is to monitor the radio and television program concepts, and to give proposals on how to resolve issues related to program creation and broadcasting, as well as listeners’ and viewers’ questions. But even they, upon proposal by the director general, are appointed and removed by the steering board. Only journalists and some technical staff are left, who are obviously not asked about anything by anyone.

Therefore, we cannot expect the public broadcasting service to initiate and promote democratic tendencies. It has substituted its independence and neutrality with inclination towards the authorities. This is why a balanced relationship between the authorities and opposition cannot be achieved in news and political programs. This is why program content lacks new, fresh ideas: investigative journalism, “dramaturgy” in radio and TV programs and items, respect for standard language, bringing up new issues. This is why program structure is implemented only formally and is characterized by a dominance of content related to the authorities and lack of critical opinion on the ruling political option. And all this because legal solutions are contradictory, for on one hand they project independence, and on the other they enable institutional and informal influence on editorial policy and concrete programming of the public broadcasting service. Of course, we are not overlooking the fact that the general policy of financing the public service (from broadcasting tax paid by the citizens) is in the spirit of European standards. This “should” be a guarantee of its independence from centers of political and economic power and responsibility before the citizens and the public. However, what is the point of this guarantee when these resources are insufficient for current work, let alone for development. Also, we agree that the limited commercial “cake” cannot violate the basic public service function, but it obviously restricts space for the commercial service. However, we cannot accept the lack of wider communication with the public. Whom does the “public” service serve, if not the public?

It is paradoxical, but true, that in the public broadcasting service we do not recognize new forms of organization and management, not to speak about better quality programming content. This crisis can be resolved in two ways: either by insisting on changes in the present legislation, or waiting for the political and social tissue to mature, which is essentially a project without perspective. Precisely due to this, the authorities must be forced to “understand” that possession of power over the public broadcasting service is not such a big advantage after all. The changeable nature of political structures of power is dangerous and it directly hurts, disintegrates and destroys public service development. Any further insistence on institutional non-flexibility, normative protective cocoon and strict determination transforms the public service into a mimicry, thereby making it unclear both to the authorities and to the public service who is who and who has assumed whose role. The results will be fatal – mutual destruction. Let us just hope that this does not happen with every new structure of political authorities.

Prof. Dr. Vesna Sopar teaches post-graduate studies in Mass media, Communication and Culture at the Institute of Sociological, Political and Legal Research in 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