(Non-) Reporting Diversity and its (Non-) Contribution to the Prevention and Resolution of Conflict

Nafsika Papanikolatos Minority Rights Group - Greece and Panayote Dimitras Greek Helsinki Monitor

(paper prepared for the conference "Conflict Reporting and the Media: the Role of Journalism in the Prevention and Resolution of Conflict," Ohrid, 24-26/6/1999)

Mass media in the Balkans do not promote diversity. Most of them are usually militant against it, and the just few 'neutral' ones simply shy away from actively undermining it. Media propaganda prepared public opinion for, was usually supportive of and thus legitimized the multiple ethnically motivated conflicts and cleansing operations in Yugoslavia. That was not an exception, though, but merely the most extreme example media serving, if not contributing to shaping, 'national interests.' There are, however, many other examples that are not as obvious as this one. Yet they function in equally conspicuous ways, violating human rights and suffocating democratic culture. Such tendency is dominant in the Balkans today. This can be seen in the fact that not only national or state-owned media participate in producing national(ist) propaganda. Privately owned media are also acting in the same direction too. The latter, though in theory enjoying more freedom, most often function as soldiers, defending national interests and promoting a nationalist ideology that sometimes outflanks even state propaganda. In most cases national(ist) propaganda dominates the competition between journalistic ethics and national interests. Producing and reproducing prejudices, stereotypes, and myths is the rule of the game. History is interpreted in ways that banish diversity and 'otherness.' Thus, minorities of all kinds (ethnic, political, cultural, religious, etc.) have no place in this history. Anyone who questions this attitude is called a collaborator of the enemy(ies), or, worse, has to endure McCarthyist blacklisting.

Negative images of 'the other,' stereotypes and 'hate speech' in the media help cultivate a false sense of superiority. This is based on a simplistic order of things emanating from national ideologies. National ideologies in turn need the reproduction of such stereotypes and hate speech, in order to legitimize the violation of individual and collective rights, including grave atrocities. Mass media even in pluralist societies reproduce and reinforce the values of a collective identity that national education transmits. The extent to which this process leads to stereotyping and hate speech depends both on the particular national history and on the political culture of the respective society.

In the Balkans, there is a very weak democratic culture and an absence of genuine democratic institutions. Thus the media, instead of promoting pluralism, play a fundamental role in the perpetuation and reinforcement of the intolerant national ideology, that makes society closed and in search of enemies.

Mass media, just like history books before them (especially "popular history" books), have to this day been preparing Balkan populations to support even violent conflict against all kinds of internal or external enemies of different ethnic, confessional, political or cultural origin. Given the overlapping nature of Balkan irredentisms, from the mere beginning there was a need to have fanatic and disciplined populations to carry out the "greater ideas." These stereotypes and myths were reawakened in late 20th century, because the two-pole system, that had appeared to have eliminated them, in reality never created the conditions for an alternative way of thinking and categorizing reality. Yugoslavia is a case par excellence. A few years of hate speech there, in the late 1980s, prepared the ground for the atrocities of the last decade . The majority of society and of the intelligentsia, in the role of both the oppressed and the oppressor, encouraged this intolerance. We all know of the Belgrade Academy's role in defense of Serbian nationalism. More recently, the Bulgarian and the Albanian Academies have produced similar studies on the 'National Issues' that are based on historical myths and prejudices and promote irredentism and intolerance against neighboring peoples and internal minorities.

Self-assertion in the Balkans, being the product of national(ist) education, is based on negative evaluations of 'otherness' and neighbors. Historically, Balkan peoples have developed national identities that emerge out of an inverted love-hate relationship. They are indoctrinated "to love to hate and to hate to love" anything which does not fit in the national imagery of a homogeneous society, that must be free of differences, oppositions, or uncertainties. This is true not only of the countries that used to have communist regimes.

Still, there is no doubt that the communist period exploited the ideology of homogenization and also provided it with the ideological legitimization based on scientific socialism. It is therefore no surprise that the collapse of these regimes led almost naturally to the resurgence of nationalism. This is another ideology, which praises the utopia of ethnically cleansed societies, free of conflict and opposition. Such a model makes dialogue and debate unnecessary, if not dangerous. The post-communist world offers several versions of this model. Some are subtler, others more glaring. The common element in all of them, however, is that this new face of intolerant and antidemocratic culture has been perpetuated and reinforced by the media, in many cases by the privately owned ones. Thus even in the transition to democracy, Balkan media are conveyors of a defensive, intolerant and thus aggressive national consciousness. In this way they demonstrate the difficulty in synchronizing rights with duties in a pluralistic society where the media are free.

The last few years have seen the publication of several studies of the role of the media in the Balkans in the promotion of ethnic hatred and prejudices towards minorities and neighbors. One such study was carried out by the International Helsinki Federation, which monitored Balkan media between 1995-96. The final publication of this project has abundant examples of hate speech produced by various Balkan media.2 Examining the types of hate speech common in media reporting in the Balkans, six major categories could be delineated.

First, the denial of the existence of minorities, with an emphasis on the homogeneous character of the particular society, has been a major cause for the production of stereotypes and hate speech in the Balkan media. The denial of the existence of 'the other,' no matter whether s/he is a member of the same society or is a neighbor, requires the most explicit forms of hate speech and stereotyping. It usually works on two levels -stressing the homogeneity of the society in question and negating the existence of any minorities.

Thus in Albania the media promote the ideology of a "compact ethnic state" with no minorities, while in Slovenia they promote the "Slovenization" of the state. In Montenegro all Catholics are (mis)presented as Serbs. In Croatia the media try to invent ways by which the ethnically cleansed state will protect itself from foreign elements, suggesting that borders with Serbia be closed for the next 50 years. The national policy of Greece leads the media to not only reproduce but also reinforce the ideology of a homogeneous society. Thus Greek media oppose any suggestion of the existence of people with a Macedonian ethnic or national identity within the Greek borders, not to mention the negation of the Macedonian nation as such. In spite of a more positive attitude towards the Macedonian state by the Greek government in the recent period, the media continue to perpetuate the same images and label as an enemy any individual or organization -local or foreign- questioning this position. Similarly the Turkish minority is 'non-existent.' Whoever accepts that the Muslims of Greece can be called Turks is said to "serve the aims of the most reactionary and obscurantist agents in Turkey as well as in Greece.3"

A second common form of hate speech and stereotyping results from the negative images of neighboring peoples. Here deprecation of the neighbors in order to minimize, debase and humiliate them can alternate with a disproportional presentation of the national self as superior to all others. In both cases labels may be used to signify different things. Montenegrin media, supportive of Belgrade policies, have called the Croats Ustashas, term used also for the independence-oriented Montenegrins. When referring to Albanians the media in neighboring countries use the -pejorative in Slavic languages- term "Shiptars." Hungarians has been presented in Romania as "the venom in Europe's body." Romanian media have often had some strong anti-Semitic references. For Serb media all former Yugoslavs are either "materialists" or "terrorists," while Croatians are "fascists." Intimidating the readers with the potential "massive invasion" of Albanians in Kosovo, Serb media argue that "an ethnically pure space is being prepared for the emergence of a Greater Albania."

The Macedonian press, which is a major participant in the shaping of national consciousness, finds it essential to present Macedonians as superior to their neighbors. In Albanian media the images of Greeks are closely related to Greece's policy towards its Albanian immigrants. Oftentimes this leads to hostile collective generalizations or extreme characterizations. Croatian media are full of pejorative characterizations of Serbs and Macedonians, leading to the 'logical' conclusion that Croats are a superior race. Hate speech in Greek media is directed mainly towards Turks and Macedonians. It is important to point out here the support this form of reporting receives from the Greek Orthodox Church, which participates actively in the production of an aggressive discourse, defending national consciousness. Greek media, with a few exceptions, support Serbs as "Orthodox brothers," thus being generally negative towards all those whom Serbs identify as enemies. The independence of Macedonia, the Imia/Kardak crisis in the Aegean Sea, the presumed assault against Orthodox Christianity throughout the war in ex-Yugoslavia… All these provided ample evidence for Greek media to produce plenty of hate speech and scare mongering against most of Greece's neighbors. Turks were presented as "thugs" and "omnivorous people," while Turkey - as "nurturing Asian and Islamic barbarism." Whether the issue was related to Turkey or Serbia, it was always clear that the main issue was the opposition between Muslim fundamentalism and Catholicism against Orthodox Christianity. Anyone with a different position was immediately identified as "Hitler's heir." The conclusion was always the same: Serbs and Greeks are "Europe's defenders against fascism" and "victims of aggressors who are supported by the West." Today, with the Kosovo crisis, the same images have been reproduced time and again.

Another form of stereotyping and hate speech common in the Balkans is the one, which produces negative images about ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities, including immigrants. When the existence of minorities within one's borders cannot be entirely denied, then the method used is that of attacking them with pejorative and degrading terms as to deprecate their rights and freedoms. In other words, everything that is particular to a minority is presented in such a way, so that the right to use one's language, the right to pray in one's church, the right to have one's own associations, etc. appear as artificially constructed demands which do not correspond to reality. Here the issue is not whether a particular society is homogeneous or not but whether these other identities will be allowed to exist parallel to the dominant national identity since their positive integration appears unlikely.

Serbian media recycle infinitely the image of the separatist, nationalist and secessionist Kosovo Albanians, thus producing tensions and making coexistence and communication between the communities difficult, if not impossible. Albanians, on the other hand, produce their own hate speech, calling Serbs "Slav Communist Chetniks." In the Slovenian press, we read that "as a rule, human rights for non-Slovenes are harmful for Slovenes." In Bulgaria, where coexistence with Turks and Roma is considered inevitable, verbal and even physical attacks -almost exclusively on Roma- are considered necessary to free society from this "threat." Being the most vulnerable group, Roma are described with exorbitant negative images. They are depicted not as simple criminals but as sadists, who torture, rob and rape people. As for Turks, they are attacked on the basis of their being both Turkish and Muslim. Turks are presented as threatening Bulgarian politics, as Islamist activists, preparing a massacre in Bulgaria. Besides Turks and Roma, new religious groups (e.g. Evangelicals, Scientologists, etc.) are demonized and attacked for conspiring against the state, for orgies, or for producing "Janissaries" (i.e. traitors).

In Romania, Hungarians and Roma are the main objects of stereotypical characterizations and hate speech. Apart from that there is also pronounced anti-Semitism and religious intolerance towards Islam. Romanian media try to terrorize public opinion, in order to make it feel threatened by these minorities. Hungarian nationalists, for example, are presented as people who destroy Orthodox churches and Romanian schools. Roma, similarly to the case in Bulgaria, are receptors of negative characterizations that border on racism. They are labeled "criminals," "dirty," "lazy," "thieves," "niggers." They are accused of committing all kinds of crimes, regardless of the lack of evidence. The perpetuation of stereotypes about Jews, which was typical of the communist period, is still frequent in Romanian media. The dominant position of the Orthodox religion, on the other hand, leaves little room for tolerance towards other religious denominations like the Muslims, who are presented as "a threat to Christianity." Besides Albanians, other religious and ethnic minorities are the victims of hate speech in Serbian media. The press presents other ethnic communities in these lands as "undesirable" and "redundant." In Bosnia-Herzegovina, things are more complex, depending on who rules the media outlet in question. Thus, Serbian media are full of stereotypes and hate speech against Bosniaks, Muslims and Croats; Bosnian media - against Croats, Serbs, Catholicism and Orthodoxy; Croat media - against Serbs, Bosniaks and Muslims.

Albanians are the minority mostly attacked in Macedonian media. Muslims and Roma follow. In Croatia, Serbs are the major target of pejorative characterizations and collective generalizations followed by the Muslims. Following the arrival of a significant number of Albanian immigrants, Greek media produce and reproduce 'Albanophobia.' The hate speech produced by the media consequently cultivates more prejudices against Albanian immigrants, making coexistence with them even more difficult. Neither the official state position in Greece, nor the parties in opposition have ever been sympathetic and supportive of immigrants. On the contrary, quite often they participated through the media in supporting an almost racist attitude towards Albanian immigrants, who are "taking the jobs of Greeks," or who "raise the level of criminality in Greece." Greek media use stereotypes and hate speech also against religious minorities like Catholics, Scientologists and Jehovah's Witnesses. This is in line with the aggressive attitude against all other religious denominations, promoted by the official Orthodox Church. And last, but not least, in Greece too Roma are the object of pejorative characterizations, bordering racist discourse.

Following the type of stereotyping and hate speech that denies or degrades minorities and neighbors, there is another type of negative attacks against those who are actively involved in the defense of minorities and the representation of their rights. There are three major categories here: attacks against minority activists, against NGOs, journalists and intellectuals, and against the West. These 'diversity activists' thus become victims of stereotyping and hate speech of a very aggressive kind, which tries to deny the reasonableness of their positions and actions.

Minority activists everywhere in the Balkan media are presented as agents of foreign countries, who promote separatism and autonomy and who are hostile towards the majority. Turkish minority activists are seen as "foreign agents of Turkey," while Albanian activists as "following the dictates of Tirana." In Romania, Hungarians "follow the dictates of the Hungarian State," while Macedonians in Greece are "agents of Skopje."

Even more interesting are the attacks against NGOs, journalists and intellectuals, i.e. the fighters for freedom of expression and respect for human rights. These attacks are closely linked to the very low level of democratic political culture, which leads to a complete lack of any reaction on the part of society in their defense. Thus when NGOs, journalists or intellectuals raise their voices for diversity in society, when they support minorities or challenge national myths, they themselves become victims of stereotyping and hate speech by the media. During particular crises, this phenomenon has led to a kind of McCarthyism against these people; they have been called collaborators of the nation's enemies.

Montenegrin media like to be sarcastic about "the low price at which Europe gets full obedience from independent media in the region." Helsinki Committees are frequent victims of attacks by the media in Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Greece and Romania, because "they are spreading lies," "inventing fabrications," "alleging genocide" and "spreading leftist or communist ideas." In Albania, during the period of the study, the media attacked the Socialists and independent intellectuals many times, accusing them of being foreign agents and collaborators of the communist regime. Independent journalists and anti-nationalist intellectuals are attacked for being "Stalinists, who are ready to make a trade off with the national interests of Albania." All NGOs are "ambassadors of Soros," instead of ambassadors of Albanian culture.

A combination of anti-leftist and anti-European attitude is quite common in the post-authoritarian regimes that emerged with the fall of communism and the collapse of Yugoslavia. Albania and Croatia were the best examples of this phenomenon during the period of the media monitoring. On the other hand, Greece also presents a very peculiar example. One might have expected a more tolerant attitude towards diversity-minded people in a 'traditional democracy.' Even though the country has had democratic institutions for a few decades, it still lacks the political culture necessary to support them and make them genuinely functional. Thus NGOs which dare speak on issues sensitive to the 'national interests' are immediately attacked in various degrees by the media, while society refuses to raise its voice in their defense.

Besides local proponents of diversity, Balkan media have no difficulty in identifying the origin of evil in the 'societies, which are more tolerant to diversity (i.e. the West).' These societies are in turn attacked, because their values promote diversity and hence endanger intolerance and the ideology of homogeneity that is dominant in the 'otherphobe' cultures of the Balkans. It is interesting to recall here the traditional conspiracy consciousness so fundamental in the communist ideology. The West is viewed as 'Big Brother,' who is the mastermind behind the destiny of the world and keeps under control those unable to decide freely what their real interests are. On the one hand, this concept presupposes the omnipotence of the West, on the other hand, however, it presents also the inability of people to act according to their free will.

Thus in Montenegro the media argue that the international community is plotting against Serbs and Montenegrins. The independent Bosnian State is presented as a product of the West. Serbian media hold the position that "the Vatican conspires against the Orthodox Serbs," that "the USA and Germany finance the Ustasha militants," that "the international community is plotting to exterminate Serbs, due to a conspiracy masterminded by Catholics and Muslims." Romanian media present an image of a Western takeover of the country reminiscent of the vocabulary typical of the communist period. NATO and the UN are called "Mafia gangs," while the Soros foundation - "a sink of sex orgies and criminality." In Croatia, the media subscribing fully to the official positions, criticize the West for the campaign against the alleged war criminals. There are also references to the conspiracy of "international circles," of "the Hungarian Jew Soros" and of various other anti-Croatian and anti-Catholic organizations, which are "poisoning the youth." Greek media have a predominantly anti-American attitude, which, depending on the circumstances, can reach even hysterical levels as it did recently during the Kosovo crisis. There are a few concepts, which Greek media take for granted: that America is in favor of Turkey and Macedonia and that it supports the anti-Orthodox view of the West, which led to the attack on Serbia in defense of the Kosovo Muslims (called merely 'Albanophones' rather than Albanians). The attack, which the West launched on Serbia, is defined as fascist and all Western institutions are described as "useless organizations full of crazy politicians and militaristic criminals." These were recurrent images during the Sarajevo events. The last few weeks of reporting on Kosovo were not only similar in this respect. They were even more one-sided. The Greek part of Thrace, which is densely populated by Turks -officially known as 'Muslims'- is presented as the base of Turkish agents and conspiracies. NATO and Turks are presented as "two conspirators against Greek interests," while minorities are "mere inventions of human rights organizations and the US State Department reports, which are generated by anti-Greek hysteria."

Stereotyping and sometimes hate speech, however, is not completely absent from Western media. On the contrary, one can discover generalizations, simplifications, reductions, as well as preconceptions and prejudicial remarks by Western media about societies which are not naturally conceived to be Western. Even though they are less extreme, they lead quite often to negative images and stereotypes. For example, the media in the West have never really bothered to carefully examine those they pejoratively called "Balkan tribes" and to try and understand the region's history and complexity. On the contrary, their simplistic and even deforming views have very often contributed to the misunderstanding of Western policy makers who then do little proactive work to help the region. The resurgence of nationalism in the Balkan region has been observed rather passively. On the one hand, it is thought to be grounded in the inevitable return to history and to primordial principles, which used to be oppressed during the communist era. On the other hand, it is believed that the late construction of nation-states makes the (re-)emergence of nationalism a necessary step in the transition to modern liberal democratic societies. Thus Western media reproduce negative characterizations of the "Balkan tribes" in a very rash way, ignoring the profound complexity resulting from the coexistence of different communities in the Balkans.4 This logic of leveling and simplifying reality in order to rationalize and justify events predominated very much in the media coverage of the Kosovo crisis and the NATO air strikes against FR Yugoslavia.

The recent Yugoslav war gave ample examples of "non-reporting diversity" by Balkan and Western media alike. The objective, irrespective of the point of departure, was how to present a homogeneous reality in which a consensus universalis dominated. Those favoring NATO strikes were quick to demonize the Serbian people, so as to minimize the importance of "collateral damage." Hardly any Western media tried to analyze the attitude of Serbs, who have lived for a decade in an authoritarian and recently totalitarian regime. Outsiders, having helped shape some forms of grassroots civil society, felt that its institutions could be sacrificed as one more "collateral damage," due to their alleged impotence to respond to the challenges, and thus responsible for keeping the Milosevic regime intact. Very few bothered to look at how Hungarians, Bulgarians, Romanians, and Roma of Yugoslavia experienced this conflict. Worse, hardly anyone bothered to look at how NGOs, which had been striving against all odds to help shape civil society, were faring. Minority Rights Group-Greece and Greek Helsinki Monitor have a Balkan Human Rights web site5 where they have collected all related documents, and a related listserv where they distributed them all. They observed how most Western media -with very few exceptions- ignored them.

For the proponents of the strikes, these NGOs' attitude was disturbing. 'Good people' had to support the strikes. Therefore, if 'good Serbs' opposed them, there was a problem. In the midst of this conflict, where reality turned out to be more complex than ideology, these media chose to ignore the 'good Serbs,' so that everyone would believe that they simply did not exist. If challenged, the same media did even worse. They attacked those Serbs as victims of Serb nationalism, or even as accomplices to Milosevic's atrocities, drawing the 'legitimate' conclusion that both they and their work deserve to be destroyed. As if similar NGOs have done "miracles" and have changed societies everywhere else in the Balkans. As if outside Yugoslavia, media reported diversity, society imposed tolerance on governments, Roma were respected, ethnic cleansing had not happened in Croatia and Bosnia, and so on. One could have thus concluded that all minorities in the Balkans -Albanians in Macedonia, Greeks in Albania, Turks in Greece and Bulgaria, Kurds in Turkey, Hungarians in Romania and "Southerners" (i.e. former Yugoslavs) in Slovenia- have had no major problems. That Macedonians in Bulgaria and Greece and Bulgarians in Macedonia are recognized and their rights respected. And last, but not least, that no NGO outside Yugoslavia has ever been affected by the nationalist rhetoric in its country.

Then there are those who opposed the strikes. In many cases, they also seemed to oppose diversity too, as they showed little respect for the tragedy of the Kosovo Albanians and frequently downplayed the ethnic cleansing taking place in Kosovo. The same people did not hesitate to systematically undermine the work of NGOs. From Counterpunch and Zmag, through the London Review of Books down to most Greek media, NGOs were suspected of being NATO's puppets, trying to legitimize the strikes. No evidence was ever provided. However, some "secret meetings" at the State Department were invented, so as to explain the lack of outright condemnation of the strikes by some NGOs, which at the same time insisted on paying attention to the violations of the rights of the Kosovo Albanians. Of course rarely was it mentioned that the same NGOs also insisted on human rights violations by NATO.

Reporting diversity in ways that could contribute decisively to the tolerance and respect of the "other" and enrich one's own culture with new elements, is rare in the media both in Europe and in the USA. This holds at a varying degree for different media. However, while weakly reporting diversity, most of them at least avoid hate speech and blatant stereotyping. Other media, including the majority of those in the Balkan region, are actively and conscientiously engaged in non-reporting diversity, in helping construct uniformity, and in strengthening the forces of intolernce dominant in their societies. Thus they are preparing their people to fight the next war that may be deemed necessary by the countries' leaders. Were not Greeks and Turks ready to kill each other in 1996 for the sovereignty of a tiny uninhabited rocky islet, Imia/Kardak? Western societies certainly need to reinvent democracy and to rejuvenate their institutions to avoid the traps of uni-dimensionality. In the Balkans the task is even more primordial. It is a question of establishing democratic institutions and developing the political culture, which will make them genuinely functional and defend them from intolerance, nationalism, and extremism of all kinds.

Journalists should not be looked at independently of the totality of relations and dependencies in which they are involved in a particular society. From that point of view, just like any other citizen, they have to choose what kind of society they want to live in and they have to decide how they are going to enjoy the rights and duties they have. There are some journalists in the Balkans, who manage to step outside the national hysteria and fight persistently in defense of alternative journalism, which respects diversity, promotes communication between various communities, engages in anti-nationalist dialogue and promotes tolerance of 'otherness.' There is an example of this in Macedonia. Journalists from both the Macedonian and the Albanian communities participate together in a common project tearing down the walls that erect parallel societies and constructing avenues on which they walk together acknowledging diversity and respecting each others rights. They have produced many articles, programs, etc.6 Journalists enjoy a privilege, which they can exploit, in spite of the personal cost it may involve. They have a 'public space' at their disposal, where they can make visible another world, another way of thinking that promotes dialogue and undermines extremism and intolerance. This is what the above project succeeded in doing and certainly many such similar projects are possible and necessary throughout the Balkans. Projects that educate the public but also educate journalists themselves to view reality as a rainbow rather than as a nutshell.

1 See Mark Thompson (1994) Forging War: The Media in Serbia, Croatia and Bosnia-Hercegovina (London: Article 19)

2 Lenkova, Mariana, (ed.) (1998), "Hate Speech" in the Balkans, (Athens: IHF/ETEPE). Unless otherwise mentioned, all references to hate speech here cover the 1995-1996 period and come from that book.

3 Secretary General for the Youth Petros Sfikakis, quoted, in a supporting way, by Eleftherotypia, as recently as the 21st of June 1999.

4 Rupnik, Jacques, (ed) (1995) Le Dechirement des Nations, (Paris: Seuil) pp.19-20.

5 http://www.greekhelsinki.gr/english/reports/Voices%20from%20Serbian%20Civil%20Society.html

6 See Anthony Borden & Ibrahim Mehmeti (eds.) (1998) Reporting Macedonia: the New Accommodation (London and Skopje: Institute for War and Peace Reporting & Search for Common Ground)

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