A Media Landscape of Montenegro:

The Political and Legal Framework for Development of the Media Scene

 By Marko Spadijer and Veseljko Koprivica[1]
Center for Development of Media, Podgorica

 INTRODUCTION [2]

This paper is aimed at presenting a detailed media portrait of Montenegro and indicating the current problems in its media policy, as well as the ownership transition process and legislative characteristics of public information.

Mass media in Montenegro have experienced a real expansion in the past decade. A large number of broadcast and print media were established, most of them private. In this period Montenegro also received its first news agency, also in private hands. This trend of accelerated media expansion was facilitated by major political changes – emergence from a system of mono-party rule – which led to liberalization of regulations regarding media establishment. This advantage was used by many owners of capital. Those who had ambitions to establish private media were greatly helped by foreign foundations, which provided technical and financial support for their projects.

Along with political pluralism, a process of pluralism was also underway in the field of public information. In such an environment, the quality of public information improved, although to a limited scope. Some 10 or so media organizations were established in the media arena, which managed to break the earlier monopoly of state media, and are now giving considerable contribution to stimulating public dialogue and forming public opinion in Montenegro.

However, general conditions in which journalists work failed to improve with the development of the media scene. Namely, journalists’ relationship with their media organizations is usually not regulated by contract, and their salaries are low and irregular. Many newly founded media at the very start of their existence have been faced with financial and staffing problems. Only the strongest have managed to survive in the market.

In addition to the difficult economic situation that media and journalists have found themselves in, their position is additionally hampered by inadequate regulations. The 1998 Law on Information contains provisions that allow for considerable influence of the authorities in the media arena. Existing laws on access to information, allocation of frequencies, copyrights, and sanctioning of slander and defamation need to be improved and updated. Mechanisms also need to be established regarding implementation of these laws in practice. In addition to these flaws in the existing media legislation, a law on media advertising needs to be passed and programming standards need to be established for public media.

Media have been caught up in very complex processes in the power struggle between Podgorica and Belgrade. This struggle has led to a practical division of the media, which reflect and enhance these conflicts and overall polarization of society. Such a complicated situation has led to multiple, multi-dimensional pressure on the media and journalists, which places the entire media scene in an unenviable situation.

Proceeding from these problems, this research project deals with a number of key problems that determine the character of today’s media arena in Montenegro:

• A series of questions that first come up are related to the Law on Public Information of Montenegro – to which degree is this law functional in the present conditions? What are the positive, and what the negative aspects of the law? What are the most important characteristics and what does analysis of regulation and self-regulation of the media arena show?

•  The second most important aspect that must be taken into account in any serious analysis is the intensity of influence of the political sphere on the media sphere and the character of the multi-dimensional relationships developing between the media and politics. In this context, we must ask ourselves to what degree and in what way does the conflict between Belgrade and Podgorica influence media editorial policy? Furthermore, how much do the media themselves affect the given situation – do they instigate polarization and conflict, or do they stimulate finding compromise? What are the main parameters that characterize the divided media arena in today’s Montenegro? What mechanisms of pressure on the media and media staff are there? How do the dual sources of pressure manifest themselves – on the part of the authorities of Montenegro on one hand, and the federal government and army on the other?

• And, finally, the third important aspect of analysis is to look at the influence of material conditions of work on the media functioning in Montenegro, with particular focus on the implications of material conditions on the position of the media in the political and all other spheres of society.

The data and assessments given as part of this project were received by surveying 50 editors and 80 percent of public media in Montenegro. In addition to the survey, we also conducted a large number of interviews and consultations with editors in chief, directors and journalists acquainted with problems in public information in Montenegro. Representatives of journalist and media associations were also surveyed, as well as a number of foundations that provide professional, technical and financial support to Montenegrin media. A number of relevant reports on the state of the media in Montenegro in the past several years were also used (“Transition in Montenegro,” CEDEM, Podgorica, 1999, and “Media in Montenegro,” Center for Development of Media in Montenegro, 1999). Comprehensive and analytical research projects have not been done in this field, which is the greatest problem that we faced in working on this paper.

The paper comprises five chapters: The General Social and Economic Conditions in Montenegro, The General Characteristics of the Media Arena, The Media and Politics, Media Regulation and Self-Regulation, and Conclusion.

 1.         THE GENERAL SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL CONDITIONS IN MONTENGRO

The authorities in Montenegro, after a split in the ruling Democratic Party of Socialists in 1996,[2][3] and after the 1998 parliamentary and presidential elections, have been declaring themselves as reformist, democratic and pro-European. Their institutions (Assembly and Government) have practically suspended federal laws and have been developing an autonomous parallel system.[3][4]

A tripartite coalition is now in power in Montenegro, composed of the Democratic Party of Socialists, Social-Democratic Party, and People’s Party. Parliamentary opposition parties are the Socialist People’s Party (in power in seven municipalities in Montenegro), Liberal Union, Democratic Union of Albanians, and Democratic Union of Montenegro.

The federal authorities generally do not function in Montenegro. The main and only instrument the federal authorities have in Montenegrin territory is the Army of Yugoslavia. The Army is under strict and exclusive control of the president of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY). The Montenegrin authorities have no jurisdiction or possibility to control the Army conduct in the territory of Montenegro. The federal authorities and the Montenegrin authorities are in constant conflict, which creates a very tense situation on all social levels. Montenegro is in constant fear of clashes that would have unforeseeable consequences. The rift and polarization in the political arena have spread to almost all areas of life in Montenegro, including the media.

The economic and social situation in Montenegro is very negative. Transition in the field of privatization has still not yielded any results that would reflect on market-driven and economical use of property. Privatization has been carried out by monopoly-holding centers and it has not been sufficiently transparent. As available resources are being used less and less, the employment rate has risen. A total of 85,130 employed persons are registered at the moment, and this figure is increasing by 900 a month. The number of employed is 130,000. This means that the unemployment rate is 40 percent of the working age population. The average salary is around 180 marks;[4][5] Montenegro’s foreign debts are $380 million, and Yugoslavia’s foreign debts are $20 billion.

A state of permanent dissatisfaction has been reflected on the global structure of society. Economic, political and social circumstances in Montenegro inevitably have a negative impact on the development of the media and freedom of information. All attempts to democratize and liberalize the media have been faced with major problems. All these circumstances must be borne in mind in looking at the media portrait of Montenegro.

 2.         THE GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE MEDIA ARENA

According to Republic Information Secretariat data, 250 media in state and private hands are registered in Montenegro. However, according to our research, only 95 print media and broadcasters regularly come out or broadcast, while the rest – all of them newspapers and reviews – are put out occasionally or have stopped publishing altogether.

Montenegro today has 32 radio stations. In addition to the state-owned Radio Montenegro, which covers the entire Montenegro, four radio stations (Elmag, Montena Radio, Radio Cetinje, and Radio Bar) can be heard outside the municipalities they are based in. The rest have local character both by range and programming content. The state is the founder of 15 radio stations, while the rest are privately owned and are financed using private capital and foreign donations. In addition to state television, which broadcasts on two channels, Montenegro also has two municipal television stations (founded by local self-rule) and four private television stations. Citizens of Montenegro have been able to watch two Italian TV channels for two decades now (RAI 1 and 2). Television Montenegro, as the state television station, covers the entire territory of the Republic. Programming produced by two stations – Elmag and Skay sat – can be watched in most of Montenegro, while other TV stations have local character.

Over the past years a large number of print media were founded. In late 1990 Montenegro received its first independent weekly (“Monitor”). The paper is in private hands and falls in the category of news and political magazine. Three years ago the first private, and second in line daily Montenegrin newspaper was founded (“Vijesti”). Later another daily appeared (“Dan”), which is also in private hands. All these newspapers are published in the Montenegrin capital.

As of two months ago, two fortnightly papers started to publish weekly (“Onogost” from Niksic and “Polis” from Podgorica), and one review (“Polje” from Bijelo Polje), instead of monthly, is now published fortnightly. A number of papers, reviews and magazines have been launched which come out occasionally. According to Republic Information Secretariat data, a total of 165 print media are registered in Montenegro. Fifty of them are published regularly and some 30 or so occasionally. Of the remaining registered papers, not one issue has been published.

Six years ago Montenegro received its first private news agency – Montena-fax – whose seat is in Podgorica. The agency reports exclusively on events in Montenegro. It sends its services to state-owned and private media in Montenegro and it has regular users abroad. The TANJUG agency also has a bureau in Montenegro, but services put out by this agency are used only by media inclined towards the Belgrade regime.

All daily and weekly media regularly use the Internet. Dailies and weeklies, as well as the Montena-fax news agency, have their own sites on the Internet, through which they present their most significant items and other services. The Internet is still in the bud in Montenegro: there are approximately 10,000 users, technical capacities are unsatisfactory, and the state company “Internet CG” has monopoly on the market.

 2.2. The Structure of the Radio and TV Scene

Generally speaking, the media in Montenegro are in a very poor material and technical situation, which is reflected on the quality of content offered to the public. Outdated equipment, low professional skills of the staff, and a very poor material position of journalists in general are the main characteristics of these media.

 2.2.1 Radio Stations

Radio Montenegro is the most influential and largest radio station in Montenegro. It broadcasts 24-hour programming on its first channel, and 12-hour programming on the second. It produces its own programming. By its structure, Radio Montenegro consists of the following: news and political program – 25 percent, cultural program – 10 percent, music – 50 percent, sports – 10 percent, and commercials – five percent. This state-owned radio station is understaffed and its broadcasting equipment is on the brink of – technical destruction.

Montenegro has 12 local stations owned by the state. They make 80 percent of their revenues from local community budgets, and the rest of revenues comes from commercials and advertising. As in the case of Radio Montenegro, these stations also have a poor staffing and technical structure, and the material position of their employees is very poor. The length of programming varies from station to station, and ranges from 8 to 24 hours of programming daily. It is interesting that 90 percent of their programs are produced by the stations themselves, but as much as 47 percent of such “own production” consists of music and advertising. News and political programming takes up an average of 18 percent, cultural programming 25 percent, and sports eight percent.

As for private radio stations, the situation is more or less the same regarding material, technical and staffing conditions of work. Private stations also have a similar programming structure, dominated by music and call-in shows. Twenty percent of their programming consists of programs carried from other radio stations, such as Radio Free Europe, Voice of America, Deutsche Welle, BBC, and RFI. These radio stations usually hire freelancers who are in a very unfavorable position, without any health care or retirement insurance.

From among radio stations, we can only single out several significant ones. Radio stations Antena M and Free Montenegro, from Podgorica, and Montena-radio from Niksic, generally cover events in Montenegro and Serbia by using services put out by the independent agencies Beta, Fonet and Montena-fax, as well as Reuters and AFP, and they also re-broadcast programming of the above mentioned influential foreign radio stations. Radio Bar and Radio Cetinje have similar editorial policies. Other local radio stations have small range and they broadcast programming of local character. Montenegro also has two local radio stations that broadcast in the Albanian language: Radio Mir in Tuzi near Podgorica, and Radio Ulcinj.

 2.2.2. Television

Television Montenegro (TVCG), as the most influential medium in Montenegro, is owned by the state and financed from state capital and advertising revenues. The length of its program (on two channels) is 35 hours a day, of which 20 hours are produced by the station itself. TVCG has the following programming structure: news and political content – 20 percent, cultural program (shows, drama, movies) – 30 percent, music program – 20 percent, and sports and commercials – 15 percent each.

It is characteristic of both Radio and Television Montenegro that they rarely feature their own commentary on current events. They give preference to facts and information. This practice was not introduced by way of special regulations. RTV Montenegro uses this principle not only because there is less and less commentary in contemporary journalism, but also because it is forced to it by the low professional level of its staff: namely, this TV organization does not have enough experts who can competently comment on events and issues.

The authorities exercise a lot of control over all state media founded by the republic parliament, especially the most influential medium – Television. This situation is directly reflected on this TV house’s editorial policy: Montenegro’s official policy is affirmed in its primetime news programs, while presentation of opposition views and opinions of different political parties is enabled in special programs, such as “Stranacko ogledalo” (The Party Mirror), interviews or roundtables.

Television Montenegro’s editorial board is often strongly criticized by opposition parties, but also by parties participating in the authorities. The People’s Party, one of the three members of the ruling coalition, has lately twice attempted to remove the Television editor in chief and other members of its editorial board. This political party, pro-Yugoslav oriented, reproaches the Television editors for leading a campaign against Yugoslavia and treating the Serbian Orthodox Church in Montenegro inadequately.

It is noticeable that state broadcasters stay away from information on sensitive issues, such as privatization failures, links between the authorities and crime, social problems, violation of fundamental human rights, etc. Private independent media are the only ones that deal with these issues. As their influence is limited, the image of reality projected by the media in Montenegro is usually not objective.

The biggest political opponent of the Montenegrin authorities and an ally of the SPS (Socialist Party of Serbia) – the Socialist People’s Party, has no influence over the work of state-owned media. Therefore, it has oriented itself towards providing staffing support, and also most probably financial support to private media – Radio Television Elmag and the daily newspaper “Dan,” thereby additionally polarizing the already divided media arena in Montenegro.

Private television stations generally share the fate of state-owned and private radio stations: they are characterized by a poor staffing structure and limited material and technological resources. They broadcast a daily average of 16 hours of programming, of which 20 percent is from their own production, and the rest is programming carried from other stations such as CNN, Sky News and Italian TV stations. They occasionally carry some programs from Croatian and Bosnian-Herzegovinian television stations. In the program structure of these stations, news and political programming takes up 14 percent, cultural programming 15 percent, movies 35 percent, entertainment 20 percent, music 10 percent, sports 2 percent, and commercials 4 percent.

An interesting phenomenon in Montenegro’s media space is Television YU Info, which started broadcasting as a federal television station in June of 2000 on the eve of local elections in Podgorica and Herceg Novi. This TV station generally uses RTV Serbia’s material and services, with special reports from Montenegro. Its editorial concept used to be unitary: is affirmed the policy of Slobodan Milosevic, the federal administration and the Army of Yugoslavia, and it criticized the Montenegrin authorities and the project of an independent Montenegro. On the eve of federal parliamentary and presidential elections, a Television of the Council of People’s Assemblies[5][6] started broadcasting, with an editorial policy similar to the YU Info concept.

Both television stations use transmitters of the Army of Yugoslavia and other facilities, and work on frequencies that have not been approved by the responsible ministries in Montenegro. That is why during federal elections held September 24, according to the Secretariat of Information of Montenegro, there was frequent interference and disruption of Television Montenegro programming. The Secretariat also announced that these television stations have been illegally using as many as eight frequencies.

It is interesting that Television YU Info changed its editorial concept from the root the very moment (October 5) when it became certain that Slobodan Milosevic would be overthrown in protests in Belgrade. It reported directly and professionally on the recent events in Belgrade, carrying CNN, Sky News and other foreign programs, which had been unthinkable until recently. With the fall of the Milosevic regime, this TV station finally took the side of the new Yugoslav leadership and took a positive turn regarding Montenegro in general.

2.3. The Structure, Circulation and Distribution of the Press

Three daily newspapers are presently published in Montenegro – “Pobjeda,” “Vijesti” and “Dan.” The first is a state-owned paper, and the other two are privately owned. “Vijesti” is the highest circulation daily – it is published in 28,000 copies. The circulation of “Pobjeda” is 2,000 copies less, and the circulation of “Dan” ranges at around 15,000 copies. All three papers have a republic character as they are primarily distributed in Montenegro, and only partly in Serbia.

Research carried out by the Podgorica-based Center for Democracy and Human Rights (CEDEM) in 1999 showed that the three above dailies were purchased by around 40,000 people every day, which is a little over six percent of Montenegro’s population. If we take into account that one copy is read by four people on average, calculation figures show that the three dailies are read by 160,000 people. All daily newspapers from Serbia which are sold in Montenegro are bought by an average of 10,000 people, which means that daily press in Montenegro sells an average daily circulation of around 50,000 copies. The CEDEM research concludes that this information is in collision with the theory that daily newspaper circulation and readership ratings fall proportionately with the general decline of the social product and purchasing power of the population. They explain this fact with the intensive politicization of life in Montenegro.

The three dailies’ editorial policies are a characteristic indicator of Montenegro’s political division. The state-run “Pobjeda” openly shows loyalty to the policy of the Montenegrin state leadership. By analyzing its items, it is easy to notice that the main leaders of the Democratic Party of Socialists are best represented. Photographs, statements and news on Republic President Milo Djukanovic dominate the front page, followed by Montenegrin Prime Minister Filip Vujanovic and Montenegrin Parliament Speaker Svetozar Marovic.[6][7] As other state media, “Pobjeda” also very rarely publishes TANJUG items. It has increasingly been using the independent agencies Beta, Fonet and Montena-fax. Items on the federal administration and conflicts between Montenegro and Serbia are always intoned quite critically and directed against official Belgrade policy. The independent daily “Vijesti” is quote close to this political option. Unlike these two dailies, the daily “Dan” by its editorial policy is quite close to the stands of Momir Bulatovic’s Socialist People’s Party and the policy of the federal government from Belgrade.

The Montenegrin independent weekly “Monitor” chiefly deals with events in Montenegro, relations between Montenegro and Serbia, and events in Kosovo. Its items usually feature comprehensive political analyses with confrontation of different views on a specific event. It is noticeable in “Monitor’s” editorial policy that it prefers an independent and democratic state of Montenegro. The weekly often writes critically about the policy of the Montenegrin state leadership, especially its defensive behavior towards Milosevic, about privatization, in particular the lack of transparency of the whole economic privatization process, about the link between the authorities and the newly rich, etc. It also frequently features critical items on the Montenegrin opposition, Army of Yugoslavia, and scandals in Montenegrin companies.

2.4. Professional Organizations and Associations

In Montenegro there are two journalist organizations – Association of Professional Journalists of Montenegro, which mostly gathers journalists from independent media and some journalists from state media, and Association of Journalists of Montenegro, whose members are mostly journalists from state-run media. The association has around 150 members.

The Association of Professional Journalists, which is a member of the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ), mostly consists of affirmed Montenegrin journalists – journalists from Montenegrin independent media and foreign correspondents. The association has 104 members. It gathers journalists who affirm the standards of professional journalism and who struggle through their work for media freedom and democratization of Montenegro.

The Independent Syndicate of Journalists also started operating in Montenegro recently, founded with the aim of protecting labor-related, material and other rights of journalists of Montenegro. Its members are mostly journalists from the Association of Professional Journalists of Montenegro.

Eight Montenegrin print media, which are in private hands, are associated in the association “Mont pres.” The purpose of the association is to protect independent press, promote principles of free journalism, fight the monopoly of pro-government media, and protect the rights of journalists. Private broadcasters are associated in the Association of Independent Electronic Media (UNEM).

2.5. Education of Journalists and Media Staff

Requirements for a higher level of general knowledge and professional skills of journalists, as well as for a wider circle of specialized media staff, are becoming more and more current. The lack of educated journalists and other media staff has been a chronic problem in Montenegrin journalism for years. In certain media, even editors in chief only had high school degrees.

The general political environment, as well as the low criteria of educational, professional and other qualifications for receiving the title of a journalist or editor, have taken their revenge on news organizations and public information in general in Montenegro. This was most obvious during the war in the former Yugoslavia when all three Montenegrin state media became warmongering mouthpieces and forums for attacking everyone with different political views. Most of these journalists are still working in the same news organizations, without ever having had to answer for the manipulation of public opinion and the deceit that had brought much misfortune to countless citizens. This, together with other negative experiences from the recent past, which has seriously degraded the journalist profession, induced the Association of Professional Journalists to suggest the introduction of journalist licenses, as many western European countries have done. Unfortunately, this idea has still not received a green light, but it does have more and more supporters and probably the day is not far when it will become practice in Montenegro.

Education of Montenegrin journalists in this context is becoming more and more topical. Many people have entered the journalist profession who cannot deal with the contemporary requirements of this profession – either cognitively, or morally, or professionally. The tendency of most Montenegrin media to hire only staff with university education is good, as is the orientation to establish a Center for Education of Journalistic Staff.

Center for Media Development in Montenegro research from 1999 showed a characteristically high percentage of journalists with high school education (37 percent) and a low percentage of journalists with a degree in journalism (17 percent). The research showed an adequate level of specialization of journalists in specific fields. As many as 85 have a clearly defined sector, which is most often the case with journalists covering cultural and sports events. This practice has proven to be an efficient method of creating journalists specializing in individual fields. However, the situation is far from ideal. The research showed that only 19 percent of journalists actively speak a foreign language.

Still, we can say that the staffing structure has significantly improved over the past several years, and that news offices are now hiring more and more young people with university education of various profiles. An additional survey, which we carried out in August of 2000, produced encouraging results. News offices of the most important media now only hire university-educated journalists and other media staff. For example, at Radio Tivat all journalists and editors have university degrees. Particular attention is given to training of journalists in narrow fields, such as economic privatization, foreign and domestic policy, culture. It is noticeable that despite this, news offices still do not have journalists who are adequately educated to cover certain issues, such as issues in the fields of human rights, religion, management, etc.

Last year and this year, a large number of specialized journalist seminars were organized in Montenegro, which were exceptionally well-attended. Our research confirms that news organizations are using every available possibility to train their journalists and other staff. For example, more than half of journalists from Radio Montenegro, especially young journalists, have taken courses and seminars in the country and abroad. Private media sent their journalists for additional training last year and this year whenever they had an opportunity: to schools organized by “Monitor” and AIM, IREX, BBC, Deutsche Welle, USAID, Konrad Adenauer, Media Plan Institute Sarajevo, etc.

All these forms of additional education of journalists have been occasional and insufficient, and only a limited number of people have been able to attend them. Preparations are underway to provide fundamental and continuous training for journalists and other media professionals at a newly-formed Media Institute in Podgorica.

In addition to specialized education in information, which is supposed to be added onto a solid general knowledge, what is also necessary is permanent education of journalistic staff in democracy and human rights. It is necessary to link education in public communication with programs on development and Montenegro’s specific characteristics and, if possible, to carry this out in the domestic cultural environment.

2.6. The Economic Situation in the Media Arena

The poor economic situation and limited market in Montenegro are directly reflected on the economic position of the media. The severed payment transactions between Serbia and Montenegro and their different currency systems have created a lot of difficulty for sale of Montenegrin newspapers in Serbia’s market. Additional difficulty arises from the attitude of the Serbian authorities, which are not inclined towards Montenegrin media. An illustrative example is the weekly “Monitor” – Serbian police have several times confiscated its entire circulation intended for the Serbian market, even copies sent by mail to subscribers abroad. High postal fees also pose a problem for newspaper owners who have subscribers abroad.

In the general impoverishment, profit from advertising and commercials is also decreasing. In such a situation, it is becoming increasingly difficult to ensure investments for modernizing equipment and providing a solid standard for employees. This is the fate of private broadcasters, in particular television stations, although the financial position of state-run media is not favorable either.

Due to the difficult economic situation, poorly conducted privatization process and political uncertainty, owners of private capital are deciding less and less to invest their capital in the media. Due to this many Montenegrin media depend on donations, especially foreign donations. However, the number of foreign donors and the amount of donations keep decreasing, which will bring a large number of media poorly positioned on the market into a really unenviable position.

The privatization process in state-run media has not started yet. In private media, as our research shows, the founders are usually 100 percent owners. They generally do not interfere with editorial policy, but they usually pay out salaries to journalists and other staff irregularly and in modest amounts, from 100 to 300 DEM. A wide-spread practice is to hire most journalists as free-lance associates who do not sign any contract with the owner.

Generally speaking, economic conditions in Montenegro do not stimulate the establishment and development of private media. The key economic problems that negatively affect the establishment and work of the media are general economic underdevelopment, state control over the main economic trends, small market, lack of foreign investments, and low purchasing power of the population.

3.         THE MEDIA AND POLITICS

Political centers of power are permanently trying to establish strong influence over all media, and these efforts have been strengthened by the constant disputes between the authorities in Montenegro and Serbia. Everyone, especially political parties participating in the parliament, wants to have influence over the media. This situation has led to the media portrait of Montenegro almost completely reflecting Montenegro’s division into two political blocs, i.e. media which are generally under the control of the pro-Milosevic bloc or the pro-Djukanovic bloc or their program points them towards one of these two political orientations.

3.1. The Dominance of Politics Over the Media

In Montenegro politics dominates over the media, as after all, it dominates over the entire social scene. Political parties regard election results as something that gives them legitimacy to run all public affairs, including state-owned media. Politics and elections are not understood as services for the benefit of the citizens and the state, but as a mandate for dominance and arbitration in all areas. This is reflected on the general relationship between the authorities and the media – what belongs to the state and society in general is turned into what belongs to the party, and vice versa.

The authorities adjust the rules of the game to themselves and portray themselves in the best light. This is most obvious in election time. Space and time in state media is given to the authorities with almost no limit. The public is extensively informed about activities undertaken by state leaders. All that is positive is attributed to the authorities, always using the phrase “thanks to the Government of Montenegro,” while serious accusations are reserved for the opposition.

By presenting the political sphere exclusively through political party presentation and arbitration in matters of editorial policy, broadcasters are largely turned into a permanent demagogic chat room, and newspapers, especially in election period, into drab propaganda reading. This puts all other structures on the margins and proclaims them incompetent to run state affairs. This kind of conscience slows down the media democratization process and the creation of independent public opinion. It is not present only in the field of public information – it also characterizes the general political situation and democratic culture of society. Practice is similar in times between elections.

However, the Montenegrin media scene is not so meager any more, and this contributes to plurality of the public sphere. With the establishment of competition, conditions have been created to overcome the monopoly of state media, which act as an extended arm of the party in power.

3.2. The Propaganda War for Montenegro

In the late eighties, the authorities in Belgrade started a war for dominance over Montenegro’s media space. The first victory of the so-called anti-bureaucratic revolution of 1989, in which protest rallies overthrew the then entire state and political party leadership of Montenegro, immediately resulted in the dismissal of editors of Montenegrin state media. RTV Serbia, “Politika,” “Novosti,” “Ekspres politika” and TANJUG took the leading position in public discourse in Montenegro. Their correspondents were active organizers of popular rallies[7][8] in Montenegro and establishment of new authorities, promoting the policy and aims of the Milosevic regime. Local state media were running head over heals in imitating their Belgrade models. This political and media dominance of Milosevic’s forces lasted until the presidential elections in Montenegro in 1998, when democratically oriented forces came into power, opposed to Belgrade’s authoritarianism.

Since then, a propaganda war has been going on for Montenegro, inside it and outside of it. Belgrade regime-run media disputed every move taken by the incumbent Montenegro authorities, and discredited every person exposed on the course of democracy and respect for Montenegrin state and national interests, and proclaimed them enemies. Many Montenegrin journalists were engaged on this task, as well as Belgrade papers’ correspondents and informants from Montenegro. In order to reinforce the propaganda front in Montenegro, the daily newspaper Dan and an RTS (Radio Television Serbia) affiliate were founded, as well as the two previously mentioned TV stations, TV YU Info and Television of the Council of People’s Assemblies.

In the psychological warfare, the Belgrade side chose a proven system of all-out propaganda using all means to destabilize the authorities in Podgorica. At the same time, flow of information across Yugoslavia was prevented: a negative picture of the Montenegrin regime absolutely dominated in Serbia. Papers that wrote objectively had small circulations, few people watched TV Montenegro’s satellite program, and the authorities forbade cable distributors in Novi Sad to broadcast this program.

In the constant confrontations between Podgorica and Belgrade, the federal authorities often tried to impose their laws in Montenegro, including laws regarding the field of information. One of the most drastic examples was the fining of the founder, director and editor in chief of “Monitor.” The Belgrade Misdemeanor Court pronounced a 400,000 DEM fine on them under the Serbian Law on Public Information, although “Monitor” is published in Montenegro. The fine was not paid due to severed payment transactions between Serbia and Montenegro. Another case is the illegal establishment of the federal television YU Info, which had put itself in the service of the Belgrade regime from the start.

Another aspect of the struggle for dominance in the public sphere and over the flow of information is present between the Montenegrin Republic Secretariat of Information and the Press Office of the Yugoslav Army’s Second Army HQ.[8][9] Yugoslav Army pressure on Montenegrin state media escalated especially after the start of NATO intervention in FRY in March 1999. During the intervention in Yugoslavia, the Montenegrin authorities enabled local and foreign journalists to cover events on the spot without censorship. Reception was organized for crews, they were provided with free movement, visits to refugee camps, contact with key figures. The Yugoslav Army tried to prevent this and began to confiscate equipment and arrest foreign journalists, and to threaten local journalists with penalties. A bizarre situation was created in which the Government of Montenegro was issuing accreditation to foreign journalists, and the Army was arresting them upon arrival in Montenegro. In addition to all this, the Army in its facilities installed transmitters for the YU Info television, ignoring all warnings of the Montenegrin authorities that it was violating the Constitution of Montenegro. Such tense relations between the federal army and the republic authorities drastically complicated the situation that the media in Montenegro found themselves in.

The Army did not refrain from any form of pressure on the media and journalists in Montenegro. In addition to mobilizing journalists into its reserve units, the Army filed criminal reports against one of the founders and owners of the weekly “Monitor” (accused of “overthrowing constitutional order and undermining the country’s combat power”) and subpoenaed to military court a journalist with “Monitor” and the editor in chief of the Podgorica independent Radio Free Montenegro, who did not know what this was all about. The only way to avoid being sentenced was for all three to temporarily emigrate. In late August of this year members of the Yugoslav Army took a TV Montenegro reporter and a news crew of the Podgorica “Pobjeda” to the Pljevlje garrison for questioning. Camera equipment and a mobile telephone were taken from the “Pobjeda” news crew.

Independent and state media are unable to get almost any information from the Yugoslav Army on events such as the setting up of military barricades along Montenegro’s border with Bosnia-Herzegovina, or the arrest of a group of foreigners accused by the Army of espionage. Meanwhile, the Army often issues press releases claiming that independent media in Montenegro are conducting an anti-military campaign.

There is no doubt that citizens’ trust is moving towards Montenegrin media, media which have put Montenegrin interests and issues in the forefront of their editorial policy. However, according to latest public opinion research carried out by the Podgorica agency “Damar” in August of this year, there is a noticeable rift along ideological lines, which is reflected in the attitude towards the media. Political party affiliation determines the degree of trust towards individual media. Members of the Democratic Party of Socialists have most trust in “Vijesti” (43.4% of the total number of readers) and “Pobjeda” (41.9%) among print media, and TV Montenegro (57.4%) and Radio Montenegro (55.1%) among broadcasters, whilst they do not trust “Dan” at all. Unlike them, members of the Socialist People’s Party, according to the survey, have most trust in “Dan” (51.4%), TV Elmag (33.0%) and Radio Elmag (56.0%). “Politika” is not trusted at all by members of the Liberal Union, Social-Democratic Party and People’s Party. “Politika” is trusted by 13.3% members of the Socialist People’s Party. YU Info program is trusted by 22.9% of the Socialist People’s Party members. Such division of media and readers additionally proves how much the media space in Montenegro is carved up and what manipulations the so-called ordinary man is subjected to.

With the fall of Milosevic, Serbian media that had supported his regime expressly changed their editorial policies. Calling themselves democratic, the new newsrooms have now been falling over themselves in proving loyalty to the new authorities. However, in Montenegro, a radical turn away from their previous editorial practice cannot be noticed in media of Milosevic’s orientation. They are cautiously adjusting to the changes in Serbia and waiting to see what position their party mentors will take.

Bearing in mind past experience, it is to be expected that Belgrade media will now be less militant and harsh on Montenegrin “separatists,” but it would be naïve to believe that they will put this part of propaganda under the carpet. It is more likely that along with calling for the legitimacy of the new authorities, these media will follow in their footsteps and passionately advocate for their ideas in an effort to have their sins from the recent past forgotten.

4.            MEDIA REGULATION AND SELF-REGULATION

Public Information in Montenegro is regulated by the Law on Public Information, Law on the Broadcasting System, Penal Code, and Rules of Presentation of Political Parties During Election Campaign in Media Founded by the Republic of Montenegro, i.e. state-owned media. In this chapter we will explain the most important characteristics of these laws and how they are applied in practice.

In 1998 a new Law on Public Information was passed in Montenegro, encompassing European standards on regulation of public information, media freedoms, founding of media, etc. Under the law, there shall be no media censorship in Montenegro, and its legal and political framework is such that it enables almost unhampered establishment and publishing of media. These liberal legal norms have contributed to the boom of broadcasters and print media in Montenegro.

Practice so far has particularly affirmed the following solutions specified under the latest Law on Public Information: abolishment of censorship, ban on monopoly in public information, ban on publicizing information obtained in an illegal manner, simplification of procedure for founding and work of media, obligation of public bodies to give information to journalists on their request, as well as a provision on the establishment of a Council on Protection of Freedom of Public Information.[9][10]

However, the Law on Public Information, in whose passing the Association of Professional Journalists was not involved, contains a number of norms that have proven in practice to be poor solutions. Among solutions that were not well received by news organizations is particularly a provision according to which programming boards of state media shall be appointed by parliamentary parties, and also the obligation for state media during election campaign to broadcast political party statements and cover party promotional gatherings, press conferences, special programs, etc.

In March of 1998 the Assembly of Montenegro passed a Decision on Rules of Presentation of Political Parties during Election Campaign in Media Founded by the Republic of Montenegro. The decision regulates media duties and specifies how they shall cover the election campaign and how they shall provide equitable conditions for public presentation of election candidate platforms. The media are obliged during the election campaign to adjust their regular programming to parties’ election activities. This means that they must broadcast party press releases, report on press conferences and promotional gatherings, prepare special thematic blocs, set aside space and airtime for political party presentation, announce promotional gatherings, and broadcast propaganda spots. These decisions have generally been consistently followed by all state media and there have not been major objections on their work in this regard. However, as there are many political parties participating in the election campaign, usually around 50, this turns the obligations of news organizations, which are not well staffed and technically equipped anyway, into a nightmare.

In order for media organizations not to remain inferior to the authorities and political centers of power, and in order for journalists not to be subjected to owners’ exploitation, along with all the consequences that these circumstances bring, and in order for freedom and democracy not to remain pure proclamations, the field of information should be regulated in such a way so as to establish democratic rules of conduct for all factors in the information process. The media should be treated as a public service; labor rights, copyrights and other rights of journalists should be protected; responsibility and openness of sources of information should be treated in line with the highest international standards. This means passing a Code of Journalism, introducing collective contracts, passing a Law on Free Access to Information, passing a decree on allocation of frequencies and other documents that complete the field of media legislation. Recommendations received from international bodies and local and foreign practice should be used in performing this task so that this field can be codified in line with the highest standards.

Passing these rules will not in itself improve the working conditions for the media. However, this would be the first step in understanding freedom of information as one of the key rights of man, and it would give the journalist profession more respect.

The present helplessness with which editors watch their organizations turn into political party or assembly mouthpieces, instead of public services, is a reflection of the balance of power in society. It is not based on development of technologies and it certainly does not favor development of democracy. Instead of the media becoming a public panel, and journalists competent mediators and animators of public dialog, they look like political party mouthpieces.

Conditions for development of free media exist in Montenegro as far as legislation is concerned, primarily the Law on Public Information. The law guarantees freedom of media, but pressure from certain political parties, state structures, especially lower-level structures, and the authorities is so strong that it often neutralizes media freedom. Power holders use non-institutional means for this – threats of dismissal from work, transfer to less paid and less influential positions, and other forms of pressure.

In this context, the Law on Public Information is good in principle, but in practice, under pressure from politicians, it has been “modified” into many rules and regulations which jeopardize freedom of journalism. Thanks to the law, the ruling coalition “To Live Better” (composed of the Democratic Party of Socialists, People’s Party and Social-Democratic Party) has crucial influence over the work of Montenegrin state-owned media – Radio and TV Montenegro and the daily “Pobjeda” – through their programming councils. Under the law, programming councils in state-owned media comprise representatives of all parliamentary parties. However, thanks to the large number of parties in the ruling coalition, the incumbent Montenegrin authorities have provided a sufficient majority for implementing their own decisions.

Last year, the procedure of appointment of the director and editor in chief of TV Montenegro was incomprehensibly not respected for a long time. Instead, the status of the then acting officials was prolonged. This is just one piece of evidence that state-run media, founded by the Assembly of Montenegro, are under the strict control of the ruling coalition. Actually, as our research has shown, the exclusive right to manage Television is in the hands of parliamentary parties. They hold monopoly over the management and editorial structures. The founder of the Television is the Montenegrin Assembly, but Assembly politicians identify founding rights with managing rights and they consider TV Montenegro to be a service for publicizing their political activities, even activities of a protocol nature. The TV Montenegro Programming Council does not discuss global editorial policy, which would be normal, but solely the position of political parties in programming.

The Radio and Television editors in chief insist that these media be transformed into public services in line with European practice, which would mean passing a new Law on RTV Montenegro. The Law would change the management structure and the situation would be much more favorable. An ideal composition of the Programming Council, according to the surveyed editors in chief, would be: one-third members who are politicians, one-third – representatives of non-government professional organizations, and one-third – independent journalists with proven credibility. This would eliminate parliamentary parties’ monopoly over certain media organizations. Instead of insisting on political party interests and giving priority to politics, such a programming council composition would enrich media programs with various suggestions and proposals and would make them more flexible regarding editorial boards’ plans and ideas.

News organizations generally advocate reducing political party influence on editorial policy so that journalists can discard self-censorship as the most serious problem in public information in Montenegro. One of the suggestions we received by surveying editors in chief is that influence of political parties and party media “experts”[10][11] on editorial policy should be reduced and that one part of state media programs should be fairly privatized. Fairness is particularly insisted on due to negative past experiences in the course of privatization in Montenegro, which even foreign experts criticize for not being transparent and allowing strongmen close to the authorities or from the authorities to get their hands on the most prosperous enterprises. Journalists in state-run media justifiably fear that the same fate may befall their media organizations, which could result in a new media darkness.

Under the Law on Public Information, the editor in chief practically has power only on paper, as there is no definition of “free and independent editing,” nor are the competencies of the media editor in chief and director clearly differentiated. On the other hand, under the Law on Enterprises and Law on Essential Labor Relations, the enterprise director has the decisive say. However, generally speaking, laws in Montenegro usually are not under dispute – the problem is that their precise provisions are inconsistently implemented in practice.

The Law on Public Information should prevent the state from withdrawing allocated frequencies and giving them to other users at its own discretion. Broadcasting frequencies are allocated via a public competition or free agreement in line with the provisions of the Decision on Amount of Fee and Conditions of Use of Broadcasting Frequencies passed in March of 1999 by the Montenegrin Government. The decision precisely defines parameters for the amount of monthly fee for using commercial broadcasting frequencies. The fee depends on the coverage zone, size of population in the zone, allowed transmitter power, attraction of certain areas for broadcasting, and other relevant factors. The Government of Montenegro has also passed Regulations on Minimum Technical Conditions for Production and Broadcasting of Radio and Television Program which, as we learned from competent experts in this field, contain European standards.

The Law on Public Information should envision the possibility of protecting journalists and editors in local media from the current, usually absolute control on the part of media founders, i.e. municipal assemblies. At the same time, support is given to a legal provision according to which the editor in chief cannot be replaced in simple procedure and self-willingly on the part of the ruling party, nor can the status of a journalist be changed due to publicly expressed opinion.

Present legislation should be innovated with a provision on free access to sources of information. Further, the law should envision modalities of providing assistance to independent media, liberalizing conditions for receiving broadcasting frequencies, and transforming RTV Montenegro into a public service instead of remaining a state, assembly or political party mouthpiece.

It is interesting that many news organizations and editors call for legal regulation of issues which in most western countries fall in the field of self-regulation. In their opinion, the present legislation should be innovated by precisely defining the technical and other working conditions of news offices, in particular the material status of journalists. Regarding this issue, the types and character of journalism schools should be legally concretized, and licenses should be introduced for journalists. It is also necessary to legally envision the establishment of a court of honor, whose decisions would be binding, without political influence. According to the editors in chief, the law should also regulate journalist awards in order to make a distinction between good and poor journalist work, thereby contributing to the reputation and dignity of the journalist profession.

The Law on Public Information of Montenegro was passed, under pressure from the international community, by the ruling political structures to show that they strive for expanding freedoms in this field. In comparison to the previous law, this law is much more contemporary and liberal, but – as we can see from the above remarks – practice during almost three years of its application has shown that some of its solutions are incomplete, outdated and not harmonized with European standards, and that an adequate relationship between state regulation and self-regulation has not been established.

One of the most serious problems that journalists are faced with are sources of information. Although public institutions and bodies are obliged by the Law on Public Information to provide requested information to journalists, unless it is a business, military or state secret, it is still difficult to obtain sensitive information. That is why obtaining exclusive information depends on the journalist’s skill, his or her authority, and the news organization that s/he works for. People with similar political opinions in this case once again cooperate best.

Copyrights are regulated by the law, but few abide by it. Many do not even know the law exists. Print media massively use other media’s photographs and articles without paying compensation to their authors, and television stations according to the same principle broadcast movies, series and sports material of foreign production. There has been more talk about piracy on television lately, and a representative of foreign stations from Belgrade has announced legal action against television stations in Montenegro and request for damages. Cinemas have also announced legal action against television stations for unfair competition because television stations feature latest movies before they are shown in the cinemas that have bought them. With the lifting of sanctions against FRY, this problem will probably be resolved in accordance with the law.

Sanctioning defamation and slander in the media is not regulated by a separate law. This issue is regulated by the Law on Public Information, Penal Code of Montenegro, and Penal Code of FRY. Fines and prison sentences are envisioned for defamation and slander. The law specifies that the defendant – who may be a director, editor or journalist who wrote the incriminated article, or all of them together – shall show proof that they have published the truth. The defendants usually defend themselves in court by referring to a legal provision according to which a journalist performing his or her professional duties shall not be sentenced for publishing untrue information if he or she possessed enough ground to believe in the information, and if he or she did not publish it with the intent to damage someone’s honor and reputation. Low fines and suspended prison sentences have been pronounced in such trials so far.

The law does not regulate media advertising. As a results of this, this field is in a state of chaos, and advertising is attracted in any way possible. There is unfair competition among television stations regarding advertising rates, according to information we received from marketing chiefs. Rates are lowest on local private television stations, and highest on state television. A recent attempt made by television houses to harmonize regulations on the advertising criteria and conditions was unsuccessful.

5.            CONCLUSION

It is evident that the Montenegrin authorities over the past years have been attempting to democratize and liberalize the public information system. Media expansion, tolerant attitude towards display of different opinion, and lack of repression against journalists are all part of these efforts. However, the omnipresence and dominance of politics in public life – including information – keeps the media in an inferior position, imposes political party interest as the general interest, and favors propaganda as a method of information.

Particularly negative implications on the work of the media have been produced by the division in society and the ongoing conflicts, which are directly reflected on the media arena in Montenegro by creating two parallel media systems which project opposing pictures of reality. Polarization of society is reflected in polarization of the media and vice versa. Pressure on Montenegro exerted by Slobodan Milosevic’s regime, and a constant threat of repression and danger of civil war have radicalized the political and media arena in Montenegro. This situation has inevitably slowed down the democratization processes, including the field of the media.

The Law on Public Information, passed in February of 1998, was written using the experiences of prosperous European countries, but there is evident need to improve it. It is necessary to promote existing provisions, or pass new ones, on issues such as free access to information, copyrights, frequency allocation, advertising standards, public services, and so on, in order to raise the regulation of the media field to a satisfactory level. Efficient mechanisms also need to be established for implementing existing laws.

A lot of effort must be put into developing self-regulation in order to commit media workers to professional and truthful journalism and responsible participation in the open media system.

The state of the Montenegrin information sphere, as the state of the social sphere, is very fluid. The future will depend on which political forces will trace Montenegro’s development course. Democratization and pluralism processes have encompassed all media, and these processes will continue as part of overall transition. After the collapse of Slobodan Milosevic’s regime, it is more likely that an acceptable modus will be found for relations between Montenegro and Serbia to enable the future of the Yugoslav federation to be resolved democratically. It is also realistic to expect accelerated media democratization in Montenegro.

Progress towards a plural media scene is evident, in which independent media play the biggest role. However, democratization tendencies have also spread to encompass state media. For now, the Montenegrin authorities have been displaying an intention to persevere in liberalizing information, but they may, if they are placed in an inferior position, reach for repression mechanisms.

Assistance, technical and in all other forms, to media in Montenegro at this moment is urgent because many of their resources are facing technical collapse. This poses a danger that Montenegro will fall back into a media darkness. Providing material and technical conditions for the work of the media must take place along with the process of their democratic transition in order to produce optimum results in the general development of a professional media arena in Montenegro.

SOURCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

1.        Survey specifically prepared for this research project, conducted among 50 editors in chief of media in Montenegro (2000);

2.        Interview with President of the Association of Professional Journalists of Montenegro Vesna Pejovic (2000);

3.        Survey of directors of print and broadcast media associations in Montenegro, MONT PRES (Association of Independent Print Media), and UNEM (Association of Broadcasting Independent Media) (2000);

4.        Survey of representatives of foundations based in Montenegro which provide professional, technical and financial support to Montenegrin media – Open Society Institute and USAID;

5.        “Media in Montenegro” – Center for Development of Media in Montenegro (2000);

6.        “Transition in Montenegro” – Center for Democracy and Human Rights, Podgorica (1999);

7.        Early Municipal Elections Podgorica and Herceg Novi, June 11, 2000: Final Report, OSCE, Elections Observation, Warsaw, August 18, 2000.

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