BETWEEN ASPIRATIONS AND OPPORTUNITIES:

VOJVODINA`S MEDIA IN MINORITY LANGUAGES [1]

Content Analysis of Print Press for the period September 4 – October 10, 2000[2]

 Dubravka Valić Nedeljković

Four Periods of Analysis – Four Different Dynamic Political Contexts

The five weeks of media monitoring were the most turbulent period on the Yugoslav political scene since 1985. The 35 days can be divided into 4 different socio-political periods, which required corresponding adjustments in the editorial policies of mass media.

1. Time of most comprehensive repression over political parties, non-government sector and mass media (September 4-25);

2. Time of general civil disobedience after the fabrication of election results at local, provincial (Vojvodina) and federal parliamentary levels, and especially in Yugoslavia’s presidential elections (September 25 – October 5);

3. Overturn in both the society and the media which resulted from the civil disobedience and the take-over of the federal Parliament building on October 5, 2000, as well as of the state controlled media like Politika, Borba and RTS (Radio Television of Serbia) (October 5-10).

4. Consolidation of the political and media scenes accompanied by retaliations (from October 5 onwards).

During each of the four periods defined above, the media’s role was determined by the altering socio-political context and their legal status with regard to their respective founders.

In the time of repression, the state controlled-media (press and broadcasters in minority languages, the Novi Sad based daily Dnevnik in Serbian and RTV Novi Sad as part of RTS) stuck to the state-imposed editorial policies, which were rigid and favored the coalition in power (SPS-JUL) and the then President of Yugoslavia Slobodan Milošević, hyperbole-loading the stories of Governments’ non-existent economic `triumphs`. At the same time, private media strived – in spite of repressive circumstances – to report on unsparingly unfair pre-election campaign, manipulations on the very election-day (Sept. 24) and the realistic initial results that followed the immediately, insisting thereby on the disastrous effects of the Milošević decade on the society and economy.

During the period of civil disobedience, the state-controlled media at first responded as if nothing had been happening at all. They kept publishing partial, often quite scarce voting results from the few milieus in which the ruling coalition was winning majority (Sept. 24 – Oct. 2). On the other hand, private media insisted on the electoral theft. From October 2, the employees of state-controlled media began strikes, which were going on for nearly the whole week that followed, in spite of dismissals and all sorts of threats. Quickest reactions came from the minority-language departments of Radio Novi Sad and TV Novi Sad (except the Hungarian-language program which stuck to the old habit longest).

When the protesters of October 5 captured the palace of the Federal Parliament and, in addition, set to fire the building of TV Belgrade (which symbolized the rigidities of state-controlled media that had been designing an image of reality using hate-speech), journalists began to take hold of mass media, one after the other, in some cases not without brutality. For instance, the Director-General of RTS (D. Milanović) and the Editor-in-Chief of TV Belgrade (M. Komrakov) were beaten up by the members of the staff who penetrated into the building; it was the Strike Board that saved them from public lynch and proclaimed the necessity of legal prosecution and lawsuit.

Since October 5, ‘crisis committees’ have been established in industrial and all other firms, including mass media. New editorial policies have been launched. Naturally enough, when such drastic overturns take place, there is retaliation as probably indispensable part of the phenomenon wherever it occurs. Journalists require criminal prosecution of ex-directors and former editorial top management, as well as the individuals who used to “plant hatred and hostility towards others, produced war propaganda and used hate-speech as means of media agitation”. The period still lasts. As usual, the events afflicted a number of people who actually had no influence on the former mainstream course.

The response of the mass media in minority-languages in Vojvodina has proved quite interesting in the changing situation. Unlike some earlier situations, this time they ceased to be mere observers and slow-motion responders who lag behind majority-language media. This time, they were the first to meet the demand of the auditorium/readership that were rallying outdoor in civil disobedience. On Monday, October 2, it was the Ruthenian-language newscast at 5 p.m. that first aired the information on the siege of TV Novi Sad`s building by the protesters who demanded negotiations with the management of the multilingual broadcaster and urgent alteration of the editorial policy. The building had been besieged since morning hours, and the broadcasts followed the schedule set months before, as if nothing had been going on. After the Ruthenians, Hungarians followed with their newscast, which likewise said that something was wrong with the elections, that there were crowds in the streets, and – headed by a number of employees on strike – around the headquarters. Immediately after this broadcast, the air signal was lost on the channels of the multilingual broadcaster. Thus, what happened was identical to the event of April 1999 when political reasons (NATO air strikes) deprived ethnic minorities of their right, guaranteed by the Constitution, to be informed in their mother tongues. Obviously, in times of crises, the abolition of minority-right to get information in one’s mother tongue is the first step on the way to autocracy. 

Similar events took place in radio broadcasting. The journalists of Radio Novi Sad`s Serbian-language Department (the largest there) issued a demand that the public must be informed on whatever took place in the country, especially on the truth regarding election results. But, they aired their demand via Ruthenian and Slovak-language programs, for their own had been taken off the air as soon as they started their joint protest. The management of Radio and TV Novi Sad seems to have not presumed that the minorities could exert such prompt response and rebellious professional solidarity of the kind, which had been so rare. The example of Ruthenian and Slovak journalists will be remembered by their Serbian colleagues. The interest of all prevailed over the individual ones.

As to the press published in minority languages, the course of events took a slower pace, except in the Hungarian-language daily Magyar Szo, which as early as during the pre-electoral campaign manifested a balanced editorial attitude despite the fact that its founder is the Assembly of Vojvodina.

The survey of the journalistic practices within their socio-political milieu shows that there was no rule shared in common – professional ethics and owners of editorial boards determined the output. This is illustrated by the mutually opposite practices of the newspaper and the radio programs in the Hungarian-languages: both being existentially dependent on the one and the same founder (The Assembly of Vojvodina powered by the SPS-JUL coalition), the former, the newspaper, had demonstrated professionalism of editorial concept, whereas the latter, the radio broadcaster, proved most rigid and only at the end of the protest (Oct. 5) managed to break the fetters of the regime’s propaganda. 

The third example is that of the Hungarian-language Department of TV Novi Sad: setting itself free from the imposed rigid editorial mainstream, it was `switched off` the air and could not produce adequate informational effects.

Yet the case study shows that journalists in Vojvodina`s state-owned media acted as a true fellowship, united regardless of the national/ethnic group they belonged to. They united for the same cause – to free the state-controlled media from the propaganda designed by a small circle of ex-President’s assistants with the purpose of promoting unitaristic model of rule. It was the joint effort of journalists that ensured success. However, the achievement turned into a starting point for another stage in which each of the media took a course of its own development. Some have taken the course of improvement in terms of quality information; others are trying to disentangle their internal conflicts which have accumulated for years; another group accentuates the national(ist)/ethnic(ist) streak.

 Content Analysis of the Media in the Majority Language and Minority Languages

Monitoring was based on selected press in the languages of national minorities and the majority-language newspapers, for in the past 10 years they have remained within the Province of Vojvodina regardless of their founders and financial sources. Electronic media, however, passed under the jurisdiction of the Republic of Serbia – mostly being degraded into ‘translation service’ of TANJUG (the national news agency), or never surpassed local significance.

What the media monitored have shown to share in common is increased tolerance and omission of ‘hate-speech’ which had permeated reports of Vojvodina’s media during previous pre-electoral campaigns (1992, 1996-7). Although an empirically accurate comparative analysis in relation to the media of Yugoslavia on the whole has not been made, the researchers’ insights allow for a claim that the press in Vojvodina have in the analyzed period been more tolerant in the speech practices and editorial policies than – say – Yugoslavia’s best sold daily Politika and another newspaper of the same publisher, Ekspres Politika. The moderate attitude enabled the journalists in the Province to overcome the crisis of October 5 more smoothly and take over their media with fewer difficulties.

Hungarians, being the largest minority in Vojvodina, have the best-developed media network in a minority language; moreover, they are the only one of the minorities here that can boast a daily newspaper, Magyar Szo. As noted in the introduction, that sole daily proved to be the best-balanced state-controlled minority media in the pre-electoral period, and remained such in the post-election days and in the time of consolidation of new policies in and towards mass media. In the last 5 years, the staff repeatedly went on long-lasting strikes (one took 5 weeks, incredibly for a daily) and elbowed out an independent passage through the imposed barriers of editorial policy, including the right to choose the editor-in-chief among themselves.

Statistics confirm this. During the monitoring period, Magyar Szo published 936 articles on the elections. Of these, 411 (43.91%) concerned the activities of political parties, which appeared in different genres but mostly as ‘expanded’ news. Peculiarly, 336 contributions (81.75%) covered the opposition bloc (DOS, DPS), whereas 75 (18.25%) referred to the activities of the ruling coalition and member-parties (SPS, JUL, SRS, SNP). The misbalance at the cost of the parties in power was particularly striking in the first week of monitoring: e.g. in six successive daily editions one could not find the names of Vojislav Šešelj (Radicals) and Mirjana Marković (JUL), which means that no information came from the promotions held by the directors of the two parties. Later, after the first round of the elections, the name of M. Marković came out only as part of foreign media’s guesswork on whether she had left the country. The forth week brought the clearest misbalance: not more than 9.45% information on the activities of political parties covered those of the former ruling coalition who lost the local elections.

The attitude of Magyar Szo to the last public speech of ex-President S. Milošević (October 2) is also noteworthy. State-controlled media published /aired and re-quoted/ replayed the speech nearly in full over the next few days. In Magyar Szo, the address to the nation appeared on an outstanding place, under the title “Milošević: My Conscience is Calm”. From 1880 words, Milošević’s speech was cut down to some 200, and cut so as to omit the allegations against the “autonomists” in Sandžak and Vojvodina who “wish to separate Sandžak from Serbia or to “annex the northern province to the neighboring Hungary”. Within the context, these words can be interpreted as Milošević’s intention to provoke inter-ethnic hatred; as the target-readership of the newspaper was possibly implied in the message from the still top position in the country, Magyar Szo decided to drop it out.

Unlike the rest of the minority language press, Magyar Szo paid special attention – in the last week monitored – to strikes, protests and other forms of civil disobedience. There were 104 such articles (16.25% of the total number of contributions in that week, or as much as 38.5% of the articles dealing with the elections). The very act of proclaiming a general strike was treated as prime information. Other media dealt with it sporadically, although the whole Serbia practically came to a halt: schools, health care, electricity supplies, traffic, etc.

There was one kind of pre-electoral events, which was given full attention of Magyar Szo, but no reports in the media of other minorities (Romanians, Slovaks, Ruthenians). Toward the election Sunday, the repressive state apparatus undertook a great number of actions against the opposition parties, NGOs and the People’s Movement “Otpor” (“Resistance”). In the monitoring period, Magyar Szo published 22 news pieces on arrest, detentions for questioning, and ill treatment by the police of opposition activists. Also, there were 7 information regarding NGO`s (search of offices, confiscation of equipment, financial inspection). “Otpor” was given 12 articles on detentions, arrests, beaten activists, search of premises and confiscation of equipment. Magyar Szo allotted large page-section to these events, mostly on the front-page and under sizeable headlines.

As to the other minority-language media, a journalist of TV Novi Sad (Slovak Department) explains the position of hers and other departments in minority languages: “We must consider and be aware of the realistic circumstances: ‘Vojvodina journalism’ in minority languages, journalism for minorities and about minorities is – as elsewhere in Europe – particular and specific in nature. As a member of a minority, you face limits to some extent in choosing your subjects and your interviewees. Which means that you mostly report on the events within the ethnic community. To be loyal – that’s our destiny, the destiny of minority media. We are not here with the purpose to solve the problems the majority should solve. At that point, we are in a subordinated position. Prime importance is given to information dealing with current life of the Slovak minority, and it was by directive that we had to publish news from TANJUG (national news agency). The journalists in minority departments have been guided by their sense of obligation for their enclave, making efforts to produce cultivated and intellectual programs. Unfortunately, there is always the state somewhere above, which supplies money and can extinguish you.”

The monitoring has shown that Hlas Ludu (published Saturdays on 34 pages, with print run of 5,000 copies) predominantly tackled the current affairs in Slovak communities, and just a few pages would deal with socio-political events elsewhere in Yugoslavia. A special section covering 3 to 4 pages contained news from pre-electoral campaign, but one-sidedly (i.e. mostly the activities of the ruling coalition SPS-JUL). The largest portion of the Slovak newspaper was made up of original texts, whereas no agency other than state-owned TANJUG was used. It would be unjust to say that there were fan-like tones in favor of the ruling coalition. Most articles were of general character. No serious commentary with a journalist’s signature came out. The issues monitored failed to tackle the response and viewpoints of the Slovak population with regard to electoral affairs. There was not one article to deal with the repressive actions of the regime against the opposition parties and NGOs within the electoral context. It was with this official and one-sided editorial policy that Hlas Ludu saw the overturning events.

This also refers to the 30-minute daily newscast of Radio Novi Sad in the Slovak language (97.2 FM) Rozhlasove Noviny, which suffered even more radical censorship served from the TANJUG agency. In the crucial days, although still part of RTS-RNS, the Slovak Department undertook a change in the editorial concept yet managed to survive without being ‘switched’ off the air like their TV colleagues. The new political situation also meant an overturn in the media, with evident rehabilitation of common sense, ethnic and – naturally – the specific Vojvodinian attitude.

Libertatea is the only standard newspaper in Romanian. It comes out Saturdays in a print run of 4.000. It is distributed through a network of newsvendors, which covers Romanian-populated villages, and by mail on subscription. It is printed in a small, A-4 format, in black only (except on special occasions when the cover-pages appear in color), counting 20 pages, of which the fourth normally displays broadcast schedules and the third is usually reserved for obituaries, although not invariably. The headquarters are based in Pančevo, and correspondents are based in Novi Sad, Vršac and Uzdin. The newspaper is not subscribed to the services of any one of the news agencies. The founder is the Assembly of the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina, which appoints the director of the newspaper and publishing company “Libertatea” and the editor-in-chief. This fact ideally illustrates the essence of the editorial policy of that newspaper.

During the monitoring period, the weekly paper published 196 articles, 35 of which dealt with pre-electoral, electoral and post-electoral issues. Most of these were general information on press conferences, election committees, brief biographies of candidates, explanations of procedure and the like. Therein full attention was given to the activities of the SPS-JUL coalition, whereas those of outstanding NGOs were ignored despite their relevance. The published material testifies to the problematic professional quality of the journalistic output in the only Romanian-language newspaper: the information was one-sided and bare; many important events were omitted, and there were no commentaries and analytical contributions, or statements by Romanian individuals giving their personal standpoint on current affairs. On the whole, realities were missing across the pages of Libertatea. In one part, the editors resorted to take-overs from other media, which they did, with great care, `unmistakenly` choosing both the sources (Politika) and political figures (S. Milošević, M. Marković).

The analysis included one edition of Libertatea published after the elections and during the intense civil disobedience. That issue manifested a great change in viewpoint: uncommonly enough, one whole page was devoted to the victory of DOS, with cautious balancing of hosts of controversial information. A shift towards more open-minded presentation of material can be observed in the editorial concept.

As to the Romanian-language media, here is the comment given by a young Romanian, writer and editor of drama programs at Radio Novi Sad: “I’d say that this at least can be said to be unprofessional, irresponsible and absolutely mistaken attitude of the newspaper’s editorial policy towards their readers and their own profession. Such press seems to be lacking fresh air. There is no more demanding and necessary effort than the one to understand that there should not exist any taboo-topics from the Romanian-language press, and that the current speech and writing manners keep our journalism behind the times. But, one thing is certain: since October 5, we can expect that mass media, and especially those operating in minority languages, must willy-nilly adopt a different editorial concept which should in the first place respect the journalistic ethics.”

Ruske Slovo is the only one regular newspaper in the Ruthenian language. It is published weekly on A4 format, and 23-24 pages, designed rather modestly with no presented data on print run. The issues analyzed are the following: 36, 37, 38, 39 and 40. The first-mentioned one contains merely articles in support of the ruling coalition SPS-JUL, reporting on their part of the pre-electoral campaign. As soon as in the next issue, one could find 30 percent contributions, which introduced the candidates of DOS, whereas no. 38 reached a balance of, fifty-fifty. Most of the articles portray the candidates of Ruthenian background. Thus, the party-membership as a criterion is replaced by ethnic criterion – a decision quite legitimate and ‘diplomatic for a state-controlled newspaper under strong influence of its founder (the Provincial Assembly) considering its target-readership, the Ruthenian population of Vojvodina. However, the last of the monitored issues regressed to the earlier, rigid editorial standpoint of one-sided reporting in favor of the SPS-JUL coalition and corresponding condemnation of civil disobedience “to which even Ruthenians have succumbed”. 

Unlike, say, Magyar Szo, Ruske Slovo published the interview with Slobodan Milošević in full, which ended with the journalist’s note that “Ruthenians should opt for Yugoslavia”, referring to the second round of the elections, then expected to take place immediately after the issue had come out of print.

The regional press of Vojvodina in the Serbian language counts no more than 2 daily newspapers: the state-controlled Dnevnik and private Vojvodina. During the monitoring period, they provided incredibly different images of reality. They differed mutually so much that a reader who was not familiar with the situation in the Yugoslav media might have wondered whether the two newspapers came from the same historical-temporal, socio-political and cultural milieu. We cite only some examples which illustrate the editorial/journalistic absurdities:    

The first example is taken from the days preceding pre-election silence. At that time, Dnevnik generously gave 77.62 of its articles to the SPS-JUL coalition, and mere 5.59% to the DOS bloc. If we add up other non-DOS opposition parties, the activities of the whole opposition were not allotted more than 9.09% of the reporters` output. In other words, the number of articles on the ruling coalition was 8.5 times (850%) larger than that dealing with the opposition parties. The disparity in Vojvodina was far lesser: 44.70% allowed for the activities of DOS, and nearly half that quantity for those of the SPS-JUL coalition 23.52%.

The other example deals with indirect pre-election propaganda. The “gray zone” is particularly striking in Dnevnik. That newspaper insists on economic reconstruction, successful projects, ‘great’ harvesting results, and international cooperation. Thus, on September 22, one reads the following titles in Dnevnik: “22,000 First Job Vacancies”, “Success despite Sanctions”, and “Homes for the Young”. Three days earlier, the highlighting title read  “Pensions Rise By 8.66 Percent”. The new bridge on the Danube, named “Varadin Rainbow”, which is undoubtedly of vital importance for the citizens of Novi Sad, permeated the pages of the daily, and the completion of its construction was credited to the Reconstruction Directorate and Slobodan Milošević. Also, great attention was paid to the campaigns “Healing of Healthcare” and “10,000 Homes for Young Couples”, as well as to the Yugoslav Army that had “successfully defended the sovereignty and independence of the country”.

The other newspaper had different priorities. Vojvodina insisted on the desperate situation in economy and agriculture, publishing graphs that illustrated socio-economic devastation of the country over the past 10 years. Polls among the young in support of the opposition’s campaign “decide and vote” were aimed at warning the readers that drastic brain drain could continue. As to the bridge, it was explained as an investment of the whole population (especially of the people of Vojvodina) and not of Serbian Government or the Reconstruction Directorate.

After October 5 and ensuing “liberation” of the state-controlled media, Dnevnik, as one of these, retained the editorial mainstream manner but applied it on the newly established authorities: the SPS-JUL coalition and Slobodan Milošević were simply substituted with the DOS and Vojislav Koštunica who now dominated the daily’s pages. That further means that one-sidedness and misbalance have persisted. On the other hand, Vojvodina keeps on favoring DOS as it had been doing during the pre-election campaign, ‘overseeing’ the fact that a million and a half votes were won by the SPS-JUL coalition, which is still a respectable result.

 Paternalism as a Determinant of Editorial Policy

On the basis of this research it can be asserted that, for the first time, journalists launched a joint action regardless of their ethnicity during the monitoring period marked by civil disobedience and overturn of Milošević’s regime. The aim of such action was to liberate state-centric media of propagandistic editorial policy directed by ruling authoritarian structures. However, now that this has been achieved, editorial policies seem to be retreating on to previous positions. In other words, there is no essential change of editorial policy and the media are now openly supporting new power structures.

To cut this long story short, we can conclude that the essential model of media’s conduct has failed to change and this conclusion holds for both majority-language media and those in minority languages. The consequences of the decade of paternalistic relationship between media and authorities will evidently continue to effect editorial policy even after the fall of Milošević’s regime. There is reasonable fear that designers of “hate-speech”, which stormed across the Yugoslav media scene over the past decade, may manage to stay in the saddle and race for the new boss unless there is a fundamental alteration of the editorial models and the corresponding logics of their practices.

Dubravka Valić Nedjeljković, PhD, is the President of Executive Board of Novi Sad School of Journalism, Vojvodina, Yugoslavia.

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