The Sixteenth Corbishley Memorial Lecture – 1992
The Role of Television in a Period of Ethnic Tensions
by NENAD PEJIC Editor-in-Chief Sarajevo Television

FOREWORD by Professor George Wedell

Given the concern of the Wyndham Place Trust to promote peace, world order and the rule of law, the subject of the 1992 Corbishley Lecture was selected for the Trustees by the destruction of these elements of civilised life in the successor states of Yugoslavia. Much of what has been happening there is inexplicable without a better knowledge than most people in this country possess, of the historic relationship of the different ethnic communities in the region. For this reason it was decided to use the Lecture to provide for the religious communities in Britain a better understanding of the reasons for the present tensions.

The presence in this country of Mr Nenad Pejic, Editor-in-Chief of Sarajevo Television, enabled the Trustees to meet their objective. Mr Pejic was elected by secret ballot as the first independently appointed editor-in-chief of Sarajevo Television after the liberalisation of the media in Yugoslavia in 1989. In this post he developed the professional commitment of Sarajevo Television to unbiased reporting and to the peaceful coexistence in Bosnia-Hercegovina of the Roman Catholic Croats, the Orthodox Serbs and the Muslim Bosnians. He maintained this policy in the face of growing opposition from the politicians of the region.

Mr Pejic’s lecture describes the development of the present struggle. He also analyses the role of a public television station in a region undergoing ethnic tensions and assesses the conditions under which it can, or cannot, operate in the public interest.

This lecture is essential reading for anyone trying to understand the present conflict and to respond to it with responsibility and compassion.

Top

THE ROLE OF TELEVISION IN A PERIOD OF ETHNIC TENSIONS

 The fall of Communism in Eastern Europe happened very suddenly. The old political system collapsed but the new one has not yet been established. The explosion of problems in the former communist countries has occurred without the framework of institutions and laws, without experience or plans, without money and in very bad economic circumstances.

The roots of the present problems go back a long way. Under Communism Eastern European countries did not develop what you would call a full civil society. Ethnic divisions were always there. But communist leaders claimed that they had solved ethnic problems. Yet as all political analysts will confirm, Communism broke up along ethnic lines. Ethnic rights became more important than human rights, and the political struggle for power became a struggle for ethnic rights.

Since the end of the communist system political parties in the Eastern countries have started to use national and ethnic rights as a solution for all internal problems. All problems have become ethnic problems: there have not been economic problems, there have been only economic problems in our ethnic group, problems of unemployment have become proof that our ethnic group is imperiled, bad quality products have become proof that our ethnic population is exploited. Everything has become an ethnic problem.

For example, how many people are unemployed is not so important as how many of them are from our ethnic community: how low living standards are generally is not so important as how low are the standards of our ethnic group. In the attempt to build democracy, the Eastern countries organised multi-party parliamentary elections, in which the ethnic question dominated. The winners were the parties who made the most noise on behalf of their own ethnic section, not the ones with the most constructive ideas for the whole of society. These elections have done more to open up ethnic and political conflicts than they have to help the establishment of democracy. From the outset, religion also has found its own role in this situation, so that everything has become more complicated and more likely to increase ethnic conflict.

In the countries with a number of ethnic groups this process was very dangerous from the beginning. Before multi-party elections were held, the political parties which represented different ethnic groups entered into coalitions. The reason was that they shared a common wish to overthrow the communist system. But when they won, bigger and bigger differences opened up between them. At the end of this process we now have a civil war in the former state of Yugoslavia and in parts of the former Soviet Union. To bring down an old political system is much easier than to build a new one.

Top

As these political conflicts and ethnic tensions have increased the leaders of the political patties have started to lose trust and credibility, first between the political representatives themselves, and then between members of different ethnic groups. Political leaders have advanced their own ethnic group, to persuade people to stop believing members of other ethnic groups. For this, they used the media, especially television. When members of an ethnic group do not believe the members of another ethnic group, it is easier to manipulate them. So, led by their politicians and influenced by the media, members of different ethnic groups started to distrust each other. But the most suspicion was directed towards people who did not want to identify with only one ethnic group, towards people who wanted to think for themselves. They didn’t want to identify with any ethnic group, and so there has been widespread suspicion of them and, for some, they have become traitors.

Ethnic parties have established control over many areas of society, over the economy, the educational system, and the media. In a society with several ethnic groups, Bosnia and Herzegovina for instance, it has not been possible to do this so clearly and easily as in others, such as Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia and Montenegro. None of the ethnic political parties cares about rationality or accountability. They care only about what is under the control of their members. So discussions about the members of a new government, for instance, have been basically discussions about who from a particular ethnic group is going to control which part of society. The point is that divisions in a society with different ethnic groups have started from the top of political parties - not from the people.

Through this process society has become divided in the ‘our’ and ‘their’ parts. The divisions started at the republic level first, then in the cities, and later in the villages. All institutions have become divided on ethnic lines, in all towns and all villages. Instead of united institutions, ethnic political parties in Bosnia and Herzegovina have established three institutions. Finally we have ethnically pure towns, villages, institutions. Everybody knows that these changes mean a much more expensive bureaucracy and much less effective society. But political leaders don’t care about that. They wanted, and they succeeded in establishing, ethnic control in an ethnically divided society.

This kind of politics cannot prosper without control over the media, primarily over TV stations and their news departments. During a period of political conflict and ethnic tension the media are one of the most important parts of the politicians’ strategies.

The process started under Communism. There were six TV stations in six republics. Each of them was founded by the Communist Party which wanted to establish complete control over them and especially over their news departments. The communist leaders divided each area first through the republic leadership. They started to establish a political vocabulary of ‘we’ and ‘they’, with conflicts between ‘our’ and ‘their’ economic interests. The economy was under the control of the separate political interest in each of the republics, and they established different taxes and economic rules. Each republic has its own TV station as a matter of sovereignty and, as a part of the federal radio and television system, these stations started to produce their own republic-oriented news.

Top

Under the communist system different ethnic groups were already preparing themselves for secession, conflict and war. The media, especially TV stations, were starting to produce, above all, programmes of ‘our interest’-, they then stopped broadcasting information about ‘their interest’, and finally they produced programmes in support of war. TV stations which produced war programmes, also produced hatred between ethnic groups. This is why we must talk about the responsibility of television for the war in former Yugoslavia. It is not as great as that of the political parties and their leaders, but it has to share part of the responsibility. Viewers in Serbia can watch only the news from

Serbian Television. Viewers in Croatia can watch only the news from Croatian Television. Viewers in Bosnia-Herzegovina can watch, each day, three different news programmes: news from Sarajevo TV, news from Serbian and Croatian TV at the second channel; and news from an independent news station called ‘Yutel’.

How has this developed after Communism? In the beginning everything appeared to be similar to other countries with a long tradition in the democracy. At first all republics broadcast federal news, political talk-shows, dramas produced by Yugoslav TV stations, educational programmes, and external programmes.

But then, one by one, the republics, started to broadcast local news. At first this was in the afternoon and they still broadcast federal news. But it was not long before they started to broadcast local news instead of federal news. After this, all the stations began to produce and broadcast their own political talk-shows with no more political talk-shows from other stations and other republics. These stations also produced and broadcast their own educational programmes, with no more educational programmes from other stations.

Finally the stations had established a closed news market and of course a closed society. They produce the truth only for their territory and there is no danger that the viewer can see another version of what is happening. They know they can not control the information which foreign journalists send out to the ‘global village’ but it makes all parties in the war more determined to control what their own populations read or see and hear.

They therefore produce half of the truth to explain what they want and when they want it. Brainwashing has started and a brainwashed person starts to react exactly according to the wishes of the political parties and their leaders. They believe only their ethnic TV stations, even though they are stations which have lied to them. With the passage of time, they feed on more and more lies. They don’t recognise truth. They run away from it. But they cannot blame themselves for what has happened because they weren’t ready for it, and nobody had prepared them. With the death of their illusions peace also died.

Top

At the same time all information, except for the official media, has been stopped. Some weekly Journals which try to publish the truth are without much influence. A hundred thousand copies does not mean much compared with 500,000 copies from official printed media, and for 5.5 million viewers of Serbian TV or 3.5 million viewers for Croatian TV stations.

This kind of closed society all the time demands new proof of obedience, new victims for ‘our interest’. Chauvinist politicians are exchanged for even more chauvinist ones, obedient people are replaced by the more obedient. The economic and social climate might be getting much worse but the discovery of new enemies is offered as proof that ‘our cause’ and ‘our struggle’ are successful. A closed society becomes more closed.

The process of identification between the viewers and their ethnic television stations is increasing as ethnic TV produces programmes for ethnic viewers. At the end of last year I was watching the news in Belgrade with some of my friends. Serbian TV reported the following sentences: "Here are dead Serbs who have been killed by Croatian forces. An identification commission starts work tomorrow." My friends asked me "Can you see what they are doing to us?" My question to them was "How can a reporter know that these victims were Serbs if the identification commission only starts work tomorrow morning? " Both of them were very surprised. They did not respond. Yet both are educated men but they have been prepared for lies. People so prepared cannot recognise lies and finally most of them don’t want to try to see the truth.

Instead of professional journalists, TV programmes are prepared by ethnic Journalists, and viewers watch programmes as members of ethnic groups. So at the end of this process, on the territory of former Yugoslavia there are now six Republic TV stations, with 24,000 employees, but each is separate and wants only to broadcast its own programme, primarily its own news.

The consequences are indeed terrible in countries with different ethnic groups. Both Croatian and Serbian TV are part of their state’s war efforts. They have prepared their own ethnic populations for the fighting. The whole of society has become identified with the war effort and the media’s role has been to reflect this supposed unity of purpose, which embraces the political parties, religions and even criminals.

Top

Criminals started to steal, beat and kill people in the name of ‘our interest’. if Serbs steal something from Serbs, it is treated as a crime. If they steal from Croats, it is reported in the media as heroism. If Croats beat Croats, it is a crime; if they beat Serbs, it is heroism. The killers and criminals, supported by the official media, were given a high status in society.

After the end of atheistic Communism, Yugoslav television produced religious programmes, at first only half an hour a week but increasing later. Where there were several religions in the community there were attempts to reach agreement about the amount of time each should have. But the churches demanded more and their messages became more and more political. The ethnic parties began to use religion as another vehicle to spread their ideology. The best scientists, writers, painters were forgotten. Society started to lose its identity and sense of values.

The growing hatred between ethnic groups has been the consequence of deliberate policy of governments and political parties, and, above all, of the editorial policy of the media, especially television. In Serbian TV programmes all members of the Croatian community are described as ustasa (Croatian extremist) and in programmes made by Croatian TV all members of Serbia’s community are cetnics (Serbian extremists). As hatred and fear became the two main feelings between Croats and Serbs they forgot everything good between them, seventy years of shared life, a common history, language, culture, economy and living standards.

A few months ago a group of young people in London established a private company to sell information from Yugoslavia to the British media. They succeeded also in selling information from Croatia to Belgrade newspapers and from Belgrade to Zagreb newspapers. All links, even telephone lines, are broken between these two ex-Yugoslav republics which are now independent states.

The next generations will need many years to forget these past three years in the life of the Croatian and Serbian communities in former Yugoslavia. The thousands of children who are now growing up read books and watch TV and are told how they have to hate the children from other ethnic groups.

A few months ago, my son, who is now fourteen, spent a two months holiday in a Serbian village with his grandmother. When he came back to Sarajevo I invited him to go with me to watch a basket-ball game between a team from Croatia and the Sarajevo team. He did not want to go. "I do not like Croats," he said. ‘Why? I asked "they play good basketball". He replied "I hate them. All of them are ustasa and they are killing Serbs". "But I am Croat also!" I told him. "What’, he was surprised, ‘You!!? Croat!!?" "Yes, I am a Croat!". "This is not possible, something is wrong", he said finally. Of course he was ashamed. A few days later he told me that politics were bad.

The former country of Yugoslavia is of course the prime example of this process, but it has taken place in parts of the former Soviet Union also, and is starting in Czechoslovakia and Russia. First is the abolition of federal news in the territory of some new state, or inside the Russian federation. From day to day, news from the federal level will be shorter, and news from the republic longer. So, it Is possible to expect media war in Russia as a beginning of a real war. Some observers believe that the language of the new political leaders in some Russian republics is exactly the same as in Yugoslavia a few years ago.

Top

Slovakian political leaders are also now looking for more TV time on the federal level for their own programmes, primarily for news. They have also started to talk about ‘our’ and ‘their’ news. Just a few months ago, some of the Slovakian television executives were retired. New elections for TV authorities are expected to emphasise the move towards ethnic division.

In some eastern countries governing political parties have already established ethnic television with the task of defending an ethnic interest and with strong censorship. This has occurred in some Russian and some former Yugoslav republics. Some of these parties want to divide television stations into ethnic channels. Their methods and their target are the same: to establish a separate ethnic interest which can be represented only by one ethnic political party and, finally, of course, to keep political power for themselves.

These examples from eastern Europe illustrate the widespread nature of the problem and the great ambitions which many of the new political leaders have in common. They want, using the same methods as the Communists, to take control over the media and particularly television stations.

A good example of how ethnic political parties are establishing control over society comes from Banjaluka, a little town in the middle of Bosnia. After the referendum, called ‘referendum by the Serbian people’, local political leaders said: "We have to check who voted in the referendum. If someone did not vote favourably he cannot be employed."

In stations which are serving the government and governing political patties, the executive staff are often changed. Croatian TV has changed its Director General three times during the last two years: in the same period Serbian TV has changed all its authorities three times also. Each of them has usually increased the level of censorship, as each new television authority, especially in the case of Serbian TV, has become more obedient than the last one. With the advent of these new authorities some Journalists stopped work.

Political pressure on editorial policy starts to divide Journalists into ‘ours’, ‘theirs’ and ‘nobody’s’. Ethnic political parties start to gain influence over editorial policy. ‘Our’ journalists serve ‘our’ ethnic interest, and they can publish or broadcast ‘our’ messages. But, strange though it may seem, ethnic parties never try to apply pressure on Journalists who are on ‘the other side’.

Top

But all the ethnic political parties put the greatest pressure on journalists who are independent and who do not want to accept the principles of any ethnic party. Some of them cannot sustain it and because they don’t want to become pawns in the game being played by ethnic political leaders, they resign. This has happened with, for example, a Serbian editor at Sarajevo TV, and a Zagreb Radio presenter who resigned in February 1992 in protest at the restrictions imposed by President Tudjman’s Croatian Democratic Community (HDZ). "There have never been more bans", he said. "It was easier for me to work under the Communists than now".

The methods of pressure put on journalists, editors and other media employees are the same methods as the worst period of Communism. They are constantly a target of threats of torture, menacing telephone calls and letters. Their children are threatened by people who say things like "We shall kill your father", and some of them have received ‘letters’ with human excrement. But it does not stop at threats. During the civil war in Croatia 18 Journalists were killed and during the first three months of this year, in Bosnia and Heizegovina, there were at least 16 serious cases of physical attacks on Journalists or damage to their equipment and attacks on their homes.

The constant pressure is applied not only by extremists, but also by the officials of ethnic political parties so it is possible to identify and accuse them: but the courts are also controlled by the ethnic parties.

All these are examples of direct pressure. There are also indirect means. Obedient Journalists receive a salary from ethnic political parties. They are also offered positions in the government, the party, or some other institution.

So, in a period of ethnic tension, the media, and especially television, becomes:-

• a focus of conflict, because each of the political parties tries to gain influence inside TV stations and over
• editorial policy:
• a vehicle of conflict, because the target is to establish formal control over editorial policy or to establish their
• own station for their own purposes:
• the victim of conflict through the incidents and the attacks I have mentioned.

In these circumstances a television station and its staff can decide to be on the side of an ethnic group or on the side of professional integrity. If a station is on the side of an ethnic group the party or the state will support it. Employees’ salaries will be bigger, but it will lose the best Journalists. These stations are involved in political conflicts, they establish a form of censorship, and finally they support civil war. In practical terms, such stations are merely a part of the state’s strategy and they exist only as a part of that strategy, not as a professional television service. These stations are in the hands of politicians and they exist as a part of their ethnic movement.

Top

If a TV station tries to stay on the side of professionalism, the political parties will try to destroy its independence. Each of the ethnic groups will put great pressure on the editorial policy of such stations. All the time, they will come under political ‘fire’ from the representatives of different ethnic groups whose aim is to divide television into different ethnic channels, to establish control and censorship, and to push broadcasting towards acting only to protect ‘our ethnic interest’.

In the middle of May 1992, in Sarajevo, a dramatic situation arose at a dam at Visegrad, a town In the east of Bosnia. Some Muslim soldiers occupied it, installed explosives and wanted to destroy the dam. As editor-In-chief of Sarajevo television I received two telephone calls. The first was from the Muslim political party. "Mr Pejic, if you do not broadcast live our telephone conversation with the soldiers on the Visegrad dam they are going to destroy It."! The second was from the Serbian political party: "Mr Pejic, if you broadcast live the telephone conversation with the Moslem terrorists on the Visegrad dam we will shell your transmitters."! So I had two telephone calls, two political parties, two threats and two consequences. I decided to broadcast live the telephone discussion with the Muslim paramilitary group at the Visegrad dam and Just a few minutes later a Serbian paramilitary group started to shell Sarajevo TV transmitter

Faced with such pressures Journalists began to divide between professionals and non-professionals, true Journalists and ethnic Journalists. Some very quickly recognised the implications. They didn’t want to produce an ethnic war and they tried to resist. But these Journalists were not organised, and the authorities of Serbian television, for example, found other Journalists as editors, and the best Journalists were moved to new and less important duties and at lower salaries. The government’s attitude was very simple: if you listen, you will be paid, if you do not - it is better to find another Job. The price of professionalism is not small. The true Journalists established The Independent Union of Journalists, and the Independent Union of Radio-TV Employees in Belgrade. The conflicts inside Serbian television grew but the state had all the power. In March 1991 one hundred thousand people protested In Belgrade against the television service and demanded new authorities. The government responded by appointing more compliant executives than before. When in March this year a large opposition rally took place in Belgrade, the television service did not broadcast it live.

The politicians claim that they alone know how to protect their ethnic interest. So, they say, we are going to decide who will protect it through the media. The practice is the same as it was under Communism. Their reasons for behaving this way are simply that the right to decide what is in the ethnic interest is the key to keeping political power. Many political parties in the eastern countries don’t want to adopt western methods and try to make decisions through discussion in parliament. If they do that, they lose the possibility of manipulating their own separate interest and, in the end, they lose economic and political power. The media is one of main weapons in the process of manipulating their own ethnic group.

Top

So the government selects Directors and Editors-in-Chief in the radio and television stations. In Eastern Europe TV stations are usually under the formal control of the parliament and the public. Communist leaders always liked to pretend that they were acting according to the law, even when they were clearly breaking it. if dictators do not like a law but want people to think they are still within it, they merely change the rules. So too with the ethnic leaders now. In the laws governing radio and television in Croatia, Serbia, Slovenia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, it is possible to find support for the freedom of press, objectivity, and control by the public and parliament, but these have been undermined and ignored by governments which do not wish to be bound by them.

Immediately after the elections the new governments decided that, instead of parliament doing so, they would establish and select the broadcasting authorities. This was part of a move away from making decisions in parliament to control by the government, away from all parliament’s parties to the governmental ones only, away from public to secret discussion. The possibility of manipulation was of course much greater. It was a first major step towards censorship. The opposition political parties and some of the best journalists usually protested but to no avail. In some countries of Eastern Europe, and certainly in Yugoslavia, governing political parties don’t want to accept external controls over their actions. :We have won the multi-parliamentary elections," they maintain, "so we control the media": and they use the media to advance the cause of their own ethnic group, not all the voters.

Many parts of Eastern Europe have a long tradition of journalism but have experienced very harsh dictatorships. During the 45 years of Communism Yugoslavia enjoyed relatively more freedom than other eastern countries but it did not establish a tradition of free journalism, and did not have the professional bodies to protect this freedom. The Unions of Journalists were there more to protect the Communist Party than the journalists.

Yet, throughout the former Yugoslavia, there was only one continuing, serious resistance to the new ethnic regimes - by the journalists in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Why was this so?

Bosnia and Herzegovina is a republic, and now an independent state, with mixed ethnic structure - there are 44% Moslems, 31% Serbs and 18% Croats. So political opinions in the Republic have not been so united and as strong as in Croatia for example, where there are 86% Croats and 14% Serbs, or in Serbia, with 70% Serbs, 15% Albanians, 5% Hungarians and other minorities. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, after the end of Communism, coalitions were formed between three ethnic parties, but none of these parties was strong enough to control the whole of society.

In addition, Sarajevo television started to become more free during the final period of communist rule. In the last four years it has obtained more international awards than all the other stations together in former Yugoslavia. In Bosnia, the Union of Journalists has followed a line of true professionalism. It has been successful in defending the principles of journalism and the Union’s president is still one of the best Bosnian journalists. Between 1988 and 1990 it exposed scandals regarding money and property deals among former Communist leaders.

Top

In Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republic Assembly passed new laws for the media in the middle of 1989, nearly eighteen months before multi-party elections. These provided for the election of the General Director and Editor-in-Chief by the staff in a secret ballot, subject to approval by the Assembly, the nomination to the company board by the employees, various representative bodies from different sections of society and the Assembly, and the finances and running of the station to be accountable to the Assembly.

The initiative for these reforms came from the journalists themselves and the television station’s employees. And they were accepted by the Bosnian Communist Party which was still in power at the time. So for the first time in the history of the Yugoslav media the employees had the right directly to elect their superiors. This I think does not exist in your own Fleet Street and the tabloids I have heard so much about.

In the ensuing elections for the Director of TV there were four candidates, and on the list for Editor-in-Chief, three candidates. The Republic Assembly confirmed the results. For an understanding of Sarajevo TV, these changes are extremely important.

So when new multi-party elections came in Bosnia and Herzegovina in November 1990, Sarajevo Television was effectively already a free station. But its main problem at this time was to keep this level of independence after the elections. The winners of the multi-party elections in Bosnia and Herzegovina were the Muslim Party of Democratic Action, the Serbian Democratic Party and the Croat Democratic Community. They formed a coalition and tried to establish a new government.

On the list of subjects for discussion between them was the future of the radio and television service in Sarajevo. They declared a wish to establish new authorities, and, as in all other Yugoslav republics, one of the first decisions of the new government was to change the broadcasting laws. Just like the Communists before them, the government itself appointed a new Director and Editor-in-Chief.

The serious struggle for professionalism and independence, which had begun in April 1990 with the official beginning of the multi-party election campaign, intensified. During this period the conflicts between the Sarajevo TV and political parties had two main aspects.

Top

First were the attempts to control journalists and the programmes. The different political parties tried to find a ‘spy’ in the news and other TV departments. ‘Spies’ had the task of informing political parties about the behaviour of their political rivals, the discussions and plans of the Editorial Team, also of defending the interests of the political party inside the station. All of the political parties - more or less - found Journalists for these tasks. They included names from the list of favourites of the Communist Party and they were very easy to recognise.

The role of the Communists in the present situation is important. After 45 years of government they did not learn how to adjust to multi-party elections. They knew very well that Communism was going to be consigned to the history books. So some of the members of the board of the Communist Party became secret members of ethnic political parties. In the former Yugoslavia there have been only two republics where the Communist Parties won in the multi-party elections - in Serbia and in Montenegro. This has not been mere coincidence. The TV stations in these two republics were controlled by the Communist Party. The opposition political parties had protested that they were being excluded, but the Communists in these two republics were Just as ruthless as the ethnic political parties in Bosnia and Herzegovina and elsewhere: go onto the offensive, fight unfairly and play dirty, but win.

The second aspect of the struggle for control of the media from 1990 onwards concerned attempts by the government to apply political and economic pressure on television stations. This was a very dirty fight. The political parties knew very well they would have a bigger chance of winning the multi-party elections if they got more time on TV. The television authorities knew, also very well, that their future independence would only be possible through an editorial policy based on the principles of professional journalism. That meant resisting attempts by the government to dictate what programmes should go out and what their contents should be.

But the pressure has not only been political, in a poor society, economic pressure can often be more successful. The ethnic political parties which established the coalition government of November 1990 had called on the public to boycott paying the TV licence fee. Of a total population of four million, some 1,200,000 possess a television set, but only 700,000 admit to owning one and of those only 300,000 pay a licence fee. Of those nearly one third stopped paying. In response, Sarajevo TV raised money from advertising. Until the end of 1989 only 9% of income had come from advertising while the remaining 91% came from the licence fee. By the end of 1991 only 74% came out of the fee and 26% was advertising income. The percentage of advertising income continued to grow early in this year but the civil war has stopped this rise and current advertising revenues are very low.

Top

The government also denies any technical help to Sarajevo TV. That is to say they do not assist in providing or getting any new equipment and the station cannot get a loan for buying any of the items it needs. The damage caused by this economic pressure has been great. The revenue of Sarajevo television has been decreased, especially because of the civil war, first in Croatia and later in Bosnia and Herzegovina itself. As living standards have deteriorated people have not been able to pay their licence fees. At the beginning of 1992 the percentage of TV set-owners who paid licence fees was 40%. Sarajevo TV lost ,1.3 million per month. This damage has been irrecoverable. In these circumstances the station - cannot work on a sound economic basis. It is impossible for the service to move forward. Currently all it can do is to broadcast from its stock of ready-made programmes.

Sarajevo television news department is under the greatest political and economic pressures. These pressures comes from viewers as well as the government and political parties. The viewers put pressure also, because everybody wants to hear her or his version of the truth. Sarajevo television tries to work in accordance with the highest professional principles and to be objective, although it is well aware that the viewers watch the news in a subjective and biased manner. The greatest pressure has been on the members of the editorial team. This has been systematic and has continued since the 1990 elections. All the ethnic parties have tried to win their way into the team, with offers of jobs, money and threats of removal.

Journalists from all sections of the media resisted these attacks. In March 1991 employees from Sarajevo Radio and from the daily newspaper Oslobodjenje and some from the local press demonstrated in front of the Republic Assembly. It was the first demonstration after multi-party elections against the new government. This was also the first demonstration for civil rights and not on the basis of ethnic rights.

Radio Sarajevo, Television Sarajevo and Oslobodjenje accused the government of breaking the law, when they had adopted new articles for the election of media authorities. They took their case to court, but everyone expected that for political reasons the Republic Court would not decide in favour of journalists. It came as great surprise, therefore, when the journalists won.

Top

But, by this time, in the middle of 1991, the political situation was already beginning to deteriorate. The coalition between the three ethnic political parties was starting to break up. Conflict between them was increasing, the people were disappointed by the new government, its ministers, and the republic parliament. The divisions in the different parts of society were also becoming evident. Instead of democracy the ethnic political parties had established control on the principle of divide-and-rule on ethnic lines. The Serbian Democratic Party then declared officially that the station must divide into three ethnic channels.

The worsening situation was reflected elsewhere. Conflicts and ethnic tensions was spreading at this time throughout Yugoslavia. The civil war in Croatia had just started, the Croat and Serbian television stations produced their own war programmes. Sarajevo TV tried to be independent and objective and its crews reported from both sides of the war. But they were not welcomed by either side. On the Serbian side it was possible only for crews from Serbian television to work and, on the Croat side, only crews from Croatian television. Their cameramen and journalists recorded and reported only what has been of interest to their own ethnic group. The truth was forgotten.

In October 1991 Serbian TV broadcast a story about an Orthodox priest who was beaten by Croatian forces. The same day Croatian TV broadcast a story about a Catholic priest who was beaten by Serbian forces. The point is that both stories were true, but Serbian TV did not broadcast the story about the Catholic priest and Croatian TV did not broadcast the story about the Orthodox priest. Sarajevo TV broadcast both stories. During the first minutes of the broadcast story about the Orthodox priest being beaten by Croatian forces Croat viewers called Sarajevo TV and protested calling us ‘ethnic TV’! A few minutes later when Sarajevo TV broadcast the story about the Catholic priest, Serb viewers called us and protested ‘you are ustacha TV!’ Serbian and Croatian TV produced a closed TV market, half truth and half lies: Sarajevo TV produced an open TV market broadcasting truth and facts.

The civil war in Croatia created the biggest ethnic tension and hatred experienced in Yugoslavia since the Second World War. From day to day it has been harder and harder to stay out of ethnic conflict. The best friends, lovers, even married couples, stopped talking and living together. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, which are completely mixed, these divisions were more severe even than in other republics. The viewers of Sarajevo television or most of them, were divided also.

Top

In a society where only 20% of people have more than a secondary school education, with a low standard of life, without a tradition of democracy, the ethnic tensions were not just a part of life, they became the entirety of life. The viewers were not just viewers any more, but Moslems, Serbs and Croats. From the news department of Sarajevo television, they expected reports, news and talk-shows which gave them an argument for their own side.

But the ethnic parties have started to lose credibility among many people. At the end of last year the Serb and Croat parties in Bosnia proposed to divide the network into three ethnic channels. The Serbian political party in Bosnia-Herzegovina wanted to divide Sarajevo into three ethnic channels. When I asked the leader of the Serbian Democratic Party what was his idea and who would elect the journalists for the Serbian channel he answered "Journalists for our television station will be elected by the Serbian Assembly"! So they were going to say who was a good and who a bad journalist. It meant that they were going to decide who is a good Serb and who a bad Serb. This is the kind of censorship I could see during Communism.

Sarajevo television carried out a survey among viewers and asked them whether they wanted ethnic channels or one service. A total of 330,000 voted against the division of the network into separate ethnic channels, and only 35,000 supported it. The Serbian Democratic Party said afterwards that the station had no right to ask people for their views. ‘~We know what they want".

After 1990 the editorial team of Sarajevo television faced two possible solutions:

• to create programmes for one only of the ethnic groups, which would not be acceptable to the other two. That would mean establishing three ethnic television channels;
• or - to create a professional television programme, aware that all sides of ethnic conflict are not going to accept it. That would mean broadcasting all sides of the war, all political opinions on the current stage. The consequences would be that extremists from all ethnic group and political parties would resist it. But it would offer a chance to keep independence and a united television station without divisions into ethnic channels.

The differences between these two approaches are of fundamental importance. This is true both for the Journalist who is trying in difficult circumstances to do a job and maintain his integrity and self-respect, and for the viewer, listener or reader, who relies on the media for information.

The ethnic television camera man, for instance, records the bloody details of war, such as the dead and mutilated bodies, in a way which produces a desired reaction on the part of the viewer, which is to prejudice him against the enemy. The professional television camera man does not seek a reaction which puts the blame on extremists who are present on one side only. He records everything that he sees without over-emphasising detail which is almost pornographic. If anything he will provoke a reaction which is against war from whichever side it is coming.

Top

Ethnically-biased journalists colour their reports by the way they use language. Reporters have orders from their editors on how they should describe the enemy’s forces - Ustashe for the Serbs to describe Croats, and Chetnics by Croats to describe Serbs. A professional will simply identify them by their official names as Serbian or Croatian forces. This we do in Sarajevo Television. The ethnic Journalist will also use many adjectives and speak of ‘criminal attacks’ by the enemy or of ‘barbarian forces’. A professional will confine himself to facts not labels or adjectives.

There are also differences in the way the ethnically biased station and a professional one will cover events. The former prefer to record events so that they can edit the film to give it the interpretation they want. Only if they are certain that something is guaranteed to help ‘our’ side will they cover it live. The professional, where he can, prefers live coverage, which reports things as they happen even though he may have little control over them.

These two sorts of journalist react in very different ways to the facts which are presented to them. The ethnic one will only use facts which support his side’s war strategy. He also invent facts, such as the report in October last year by Serbian television that 41 Serbian children had been killed by criminal Croatian Ustashe forces. This was before a commission of enquiry had started work. A few months afterwards, a Belgrade newspaper reported that the children had in fact been Croatian. Denying the existence of true facts is a form of censorship. Inventing facts and adding comment to facts is propaganda. This is not true journalism but it is what is happening in the conflict in the former Yugoslavia.

The professional approach, of course, is to use facts from both sides. Using the example of the murdered children we should say:

"The bodies of 41 murdered children have been found. A commission of investigation is to begin work. Meanwhile both sides are accusing each other of responsibility for this crime." The professional does not add comments or his own views to his work. The viewer or reader must draw his or her own conclusions from the evidence offered by the pure facts.

Top

Reporters or film crews who support only one ethnic side do not like going into the territory of the other side. Professionals insist on sending their crews to both sides in the conflict, and without military protection or privileges. This is why many of the journalists who have been killed in the fighting have been among the most dedicated professionals.

The programmes which are prepared by these two schools, or camps, or journalists, are different too. The ethnic ones are for consumption by their group alone, not for the whole community, and are under government control. In Sarajevo we have tried to run a professional station for everyone and one which is controlled by the public, parliament and the employees. In this way it cannot become the tool of dictators.

The effect of ethnically biased programmes has important consequences on the attitudes of those who watch them. People who watch programmes produced by ethnic, government controlled TV stations, exist only as members of that group, and have their prejudices confirmed and their opinions determined for them. Ethnic television tries to mobilise its audience for war. With this diet of half-truth, lies, censorship and propaganda, hatred is increased and the prospects for harmony between ethnic groups is greatly reduced. Ethnic television is an essential part of a closed society in which access to other views, and other television stations, is denied.

Today those who can watch a professional station are in a minority. The effect on its viewers, however, is to produce sentiments of opposition to war and to produce resistance to it and a desire for peace. Professional programmes teach people to listen to the views of others because this is one of the conditions of democracy. Professional television creates an open market in ideas and views as well as in programmes and stations. It is an essential ingredient of an open society.

For the journalists at Sarajevo television there has been no doubt about the path we wish to follow: with the principles of professionalism we had a chance to stay independent and to do our proper job. Without those principles there is no chance of professional integrity, nor any hope for peace, freedom and democracy’ in our land.

Top

Back to Lecture menu