International Research & Exchanges Board

Search:
 

MSI Europe & Eurasia 2009

 

Bosnia & Herzegovina

• Introduction
• Objective 1: Free Speech
• Objective 2: Professional Journalism
• Objective 3: Plurality of News Sources
• Objective 4: Business Management
• Objective 5: Supporting Institutions
• Panel Participants

---

Introduction

Overall Country Score:  2.81

On the surface, Bosnia and Herzegovina (B&H) saw progress in the political and media spheres in 2008. First, after several postponements, the Stabilization and Association Agreement was signed with the European Union. After being hung up in the Constitutional Court for two years, the law on the federation’s public broadcaster was passed, completing the legislative framework for the operation of the nationwide Public Broadcasting System.

However, true progress was lacking in both cases. The European Commission’s 2008 progress report ¹ notes that a general lack of consensus on state building, frequent challenges to the Dayton Peace Accords, and inflammatory nationalist rhetoric have adversely affected the functioning of institutions and slowed down reforms. Also, the authorities failed to demonstrate sufficient capacity to take political ownership and responsibility for governing the country. Corruption, as in previous years, remains a widespread and serious problem. Therefore, no progress has been made towards constitutional reform that would allow the country to transition away from the Dayton Peace Accords and toward European integration.

Adoption of the law on the federation’s public broadcaster did not lead to the establishment of the Corporation of Public Broadcasters as the fourth and last component of the B&H Public Broadcasting System. Rather, political pressure increased on B&H Television (BHT), the nation-wide broadcaster. The supervisory board dismissed the general director and how the present stalemate will be ended is not yet clear.

Municipal elections were held in October 2008. According to a Communications Regulatory Agency (CRA) report, ² electronic media approached these elections in a more professional and comprehensive way than the 2004 municipal elections and 2006 general elections, and more media outlets met standards of reporting.

Compared to last year, the overall evaluation has risen slightly from 2.64 to 2.81. Individually, there was a slight drop in Objective 1, freedom of speech. This drop in Objective 1 and apparent trends toward politicization discussed below are worrisome and, if continued, may have a more dramatic impact on the other objectives in the coming year. With regard to Objective 2, professional journalism, the evaluation is effectively unchanged from last year. Considering last year’s drop in this objective, professional standards are not yet at a satisfactory level and there are numerous problems, both in terms of the status of journalists in society and in the their practice. The remaining three objectives received higher marks than last year.

 

---

Objective 1: Freedom of Speech 

Score: 2.94

The score for this objective fell slightly compared to 2008, from 3.04 to 2.94, due chiefly to lower scores for Indicators 2 and 4, broadcast licensing and attacks on journalists. All other indicators scored roughly the same as last year. Further, most of the indicators scored close to the overall objective score, with a few exceptions. Indicator 4 scored a point lower and Indicator 5, independence of public broadcasting, scored more than a half point lower. On the other hand, indicators 8 and 9, media access to international news sources and free entry to the journalism profession, scored almost a point higher.

The legislative framework that regulates protection of freedom of speech is made up of high standards, and in this regard B&H is ahead of countries in the region as well as many countries with years of implementation of high democratic standards. As Mehmed Halilović, the Federation’s deputy ombudsman on media, said, “We really have superior standards, and in these matters we are even ahead of others and of western European countries. [The laws] are in harmony with recommendations of the Council of Europe and European Union, and even of the European Court for the Protection of Human Rights.” For example, he said, “Only three European countries have fully decriminalized defamation, and another three have partly done that. Along with Bosnia-Herzegovina, where all defamation trials have taken place exclusively in civil proceedings since 2002, the former group also includes Ukraine [since 2001] and Georgia. All other European countries, including traditional democracies, have retained defamation in their penal codes, but the fact is that this is generally just on paper. In the last two decades, not a single case was reported of journalists or editors being sentenced to prison in any European Union nation—except in Poland and Hungary before they entered the European Union [those journalists have been granted pardon in the meantime]—but there have been several cases of convictions with generally symbolic fines.”³

In contrast, very often inadequate implementation mechanisms and therefore very important aspects of these laws remain unimplemented. In addition, it is noteworthy that the legislative framework exists in a social situation characterized by the constant lack of political will to create conditions in society that will enable the application of high standards from these laws. Overall, panelists felt, freedom of speech is not yet highly valued. Some panelists remarked that courts do not apply the same standards in passing decisions in defamation cases and thus degrade the principles of freedom of speech. Halilović had a slightly different opinion based on many years of experience following the work of courts in this field. He emphasized that in the work of courts, “there is still no standardization, but I don’t think the judiciary factor is so important that it considerably reduces the score. The political factor is more important and it does not yet support, accept, or value freedom of speech.”

Licensing is the responsibility of the CRA, an independent government agency. Boro Kontić, director of Mediacentar Sarajevo, said that CRA is “one of the most successful organizations launched by the international community, which has transformed into a national agency. It now faces a hundred of problems—that’s a different matter—but they seem to have succeeded in finding the right balance in their work.” These sentiments are shared by many other media professionals.

The principles set down by CRA in the broadcasting sector are labeled as very advanced. Halilović emphasized, “The standard established by the Communications Regulatory Agency and the way this field is regulated here are really superior. After all, European recognition [the fact that CRA works closely and with the approval of many European partners] confirms that.”

On the other hand, media employees from broadcasters, who regularly cooperate with CRA in the course of their work, do not share the high opinion of the way CRA implements the regulatory framework. The most common objections regard the existence of different standards for different media. Zoran Ćatić, editor-in-chief of student radio eFM, maintains that, “legislative frameworks are wonderful, but like everything else in this country, they can’t be implemented the way it is now done.”

Political pressures did impact the CRA in 2008. Politically motivated attacks on the CRA are becoming more frequent, seriously endangering its independence. Recent cases of these attacks, the most serious being the political interference in the election of the agency’s director general, clearly show how the political structures are trying to limit newly acquired media liberties while disregarding previously accepted laws and international obligations. It is important to note that the Law on Communications does not leave any possibility for the Council of Ministers to reject the suggested candidate for the director general. However, the council rejected the suggestion of the CRA and ordered that within 15 days, a new public invitation for electing a director general be published.

Since this problem occurred, local political leaders have, on many occasions, publicly speculated on and have even given proposals for the position of director general using nationality as the key attribute. Representatives of the local media scene, as well as the international bodies OSCE, Council of Europe, European Parliament, and European Commission, expressed concern about this situation. But the Council of Ministers refused to accept the decision of the CRA Council about its new director general.⁴

All panelists described the legislative framework regulating the entry of media outlets in the market as open; the state does not interfere with economic relations in the media market. Moreover, some of the participants maintained that the framework is too liberal in a way, because it allows foreign media organizations, especially from the region, to enter the local market very easily, while the same situation does not apply to B&H media organizations entering markets in other countries in the region. Borka Rudić, general secretary of the B&H Journalists’ Association, said that media in the region “are not burdened in any way when entering Bosnia-Herzegovina, while our print media cannot enter there [primarily Croatia and Serbia] at all. The authorities have never made an effort to create reciprocity, just to show them that we can do what they are doing.”

The press generally is not burdened with higher taxes than companies in other sectors. A VAT of 17 percent is in effect and applies equally to all businesses. However, while the law has brought order to the publishing sector, it seems that due to the very difficult situation in the print media sector, the time has come for the state to take steps to stabilize the sector. “The print media, for many years, asked to be exempted from paying VAT,” said Senad Zaimović, director of the marketing agency Fabrika. “Considering the present situation with print media, I think the state should take account of these circumstances and set a different VAT rate—for example, five percent—as is in some countries that are more developed than Bosnia-Herzegovina, because I think the print media are presently the most vulnerable media in Bosnia-Herzegovina and at this moment they need maximum support. It is very hard to work in circumstances of development of the Internet and information on the Internet. As a result, the situation concerning their survival will become increasingly difficult.”

The panelists’ general assessment was that the number of attacks on journalists increased in 2008. A Dnevni Avaz editor, Adi Hadžiarapović, said that he believes that the problem has become dramatic. “From colleagues from Federal [Television], to us, Nezavisne Novine, virtually everyone, periodically, almost every month, had problems. Irrespective of editorial policies, depending on problems and raising of issues that did not suit individuals, everyone has faced physical threats, shoving, hitting, and so on.”

According to Free Media Help Line data,⁵ the number of violations of freedoms and rights of journalists has increased. Rudić said that the increase is drastic because in the first 11 months of 2008, 48 cases were reported to the Free Media Help Line, while in the whole of 2007, 28 such cases were reported. In addition, some of the most blatant examples of attacks on media and journalists happened in December 2008, when two bombs were hurled at Sarajevo’s independent television station Hayat.

Of the above 48 cases of violations of journalists’ rights, 12 involved physical attacks. Rudić said that a special problem in sanctioning attacks on journalists is the police practice of labeling attacks on journalists as common misdemeanors, rather than as attacks on official persons in the exercise of their duties. In this regard, the B&H Journalists’ Association has supported a political party that initiated amendments to the criminal code and criminal procedure code so that every attack on a journalist would be treated as a felony. In general journalists, do not complain about the handling of cases by the police; rather, they point to inefficiency in the handling of these cases by the court system.

Explaining the trend of increased attacks and pressure on journalists and media, FTV Program Director Zvonimir Jukić said, “Freedom of media is slowly declining, and this corresponds to the presence of the international community here. With a reduction in the international community’s presence in Bosnia-Herzegovina and their activities, in terms of sanctioning politicians [or] their therapeutic effect in society, this kind of pressure simply rises.”

Kontić said that another cause for the mounting pressure on media is the increase in investigative journalism by various media organizations. Their reports provoke the story subjects to react. “I think there has been a rise in investigative stories in Bosnia-Herzegovina. This is no longer just a small oasis, one or two doing something; this has now become the way most journalists work. Virtually all daily papers work that way now; all weeklies; even television stations do that very often, which they didn’t really do before. Thus, the sensitivity threshold has shifted a little. People now feel a pressure that isn’t small, especially in election years such as this one. The better our journalism becomes, the more these problems actually increase.”

Regarding editorial independence at public broadcasters, the majority of controversial issues in 2008 were raised with regard to independence of public televisions’ editorial structures from political authorities. Although the general opinion of the panelists was that the legislative framework for public televisions is not bad, the majority said that they believe there are serious shortcomings in the way the management mechanisms for public televisions are defined, because they enable direct political control over the public broadcasters.

Namely, the supervisory board and managing board are the two main management bodies in all three public broadcasters. The managing board, whose role is to run and oversee broadcasters’ everyday work, is made up of the general director and heads of departments. Supervisory boards are intended to represent public interests with regard to programming and to supervise broadcasters’ overall operations. Each supervisory board has four members: one from each constituent group and a representative of “others,” while BHRT, as the nationwide broadcaster, has four members following the same principle, but each entity having two members. Thus, a representative of Serbs and a representative of “others” come from the Republika Srpska (RS), while a representative of Bosniaks and a representative of Croats come from the B&H Federation.

Members of the supervisory board are appointed by the parliamentary assembly of B&H from a list of candidates submitted by the CRA. The supervisory board of the fourth component of the Public Broadcasting System—the corporation—is made up of all members of the three B&H public broadcasting services’ supervisory boards.

Boards created this way seem problematic for several reasons. First, for members chosen primarily according to political suitability and national background, adequately representing the interests of different social groups is difficult. “The key thing about the BHRT supervisory board is that it’s four men,” Zaimović said, “They can’t represent the public through four men. I think Croatian Television has 21, from...different segments of society. And then you have...a critical mass which cannot, with two individuals, decide on the fate of public service.”

At first glance, the board selection procedure seems quite appropriate. According to Mira Lolić-Močević, RTRS program director, “When you [open] a seat on the supervisory board, 50 applications come in. CRA is the body that selects a portion of those 50 and sends them to the assembly, [which] selects the supervisory board members. At least that’s how it is in the Republika Srpska. That means you have a very fine way [of selecting]—a democratic one, you could say.”

However, the procedure is not efficient enough at removing politically favored candidates. The members who have gone through this procedure are mostly there to carry out the interests of certain political groups. Moreover, as BHT Director Milenko Voćkić said, they blatantly display their intention to take complete control of BHT. “The BHRT supervisory board members completely reflect and transfer political influence on the management structures and even on editorial structures, and they try to do that very openly. And worst of all, they have managed, based on the law, which can be interpreted quite loosely, to make a statute that allows them to do that.”

In addition, at the end of 2008, the federation parliament passed amendments to the law on the federation’s public broadcaster, which neglects the role of the CRA in procedures of election and the appointment of federal RTV supervisory board members and places the whole process of these appointments exclusively in the jurisdiction of the parliament. The Office of the High Representative reminded the parliamentarians that this move constitutes politicization of the supervisory board and that it is not in line with European norms.

Since 2002, the law on protection against defamation has been in effect in B&H, decriminalizing this field and moving it from criminal to civil law. The law stipulates freedom of expression to the degree that expressions that may insult, embitter, or disturb are protected. On the other hand, professional conduct is required of journalists, harmonized with the code for journalists and free of malicious intent. Article 6:3 of the law defines this as journalists who “willfully or negligently made or disseminated the expression of false facts.”

Halilović, deputy ombudsman on media of the B&H Federation, said the most important point in the law is that “the accused no longer have to prove they are not guilty, but rather the plaintiffs have to prove that the accused are actually guilty. Thus, we finally come into a situation where, for example, a journalist becomes guilty only when guilt is proven, not simply by coming to court.”⁶

Implementation of the law is problematic as well. Some public officials, journalists, and media owners are not complying with the standards prescribed by the law. An interesting phenomenon is that a large number of defamation lawsuits involve counter-accusations between journalists and media owners. This actually points to insufficient implementation of the press self-regulation system. According to latest available data, between 170 and 190 civil suits were filed in B&H in 2007. ⁷

On the other hand, some panelists have seen positive outcomes in court cases concerning implementation of the law. Jukić told the panel of his experiences with two local courts in Western Herzegovina, where out of 14 lawsuits, all ended in FTV’s favor either by settlement or by court judgment. Jukić explained that during court hearings, “Everyone wants to prove mental anguish and they try to prove it through family members. When the court asks for psychiatric evaluation, an official document that proves mental anguish, no one has such expertise, so the court acquits the accused.”

With regard to access to public information, panelists maintain that B&H has some problems. The inefficiency of institutions in possession of information of public importance is a major impediment. Nezavisne Novine journalist Mirza Čubro gave examples. “You can’t find decisions passed by the Council of Ministers on its website. It’s a terrible procedure to get, for instance, a decision on approval of KM 15,000 for someone.”

Another factor is political willingness to make public information available to all media under the same conditions. This situation is most evident on the example of the RS government, which in 2007 passed a decision not to give statements to the public television BHT. The decision was later revoked, but according to Voćkić, its effects were certainly felt in 2008, too. The prime minister in particular retains animosity toward BHT, and has publicly accused BHT of being unprofessional, particularly over an item related to a commemoration for Serbs who perished in Srebrenica and Bratunac. He stated afterward that BHT “has officially become a foreign television for the RS,” and that “there is no longer a single reason” for citizens of that entity to pay license fees to the station. ⁸

Access to international news, sources of news, and entrance into the journalism profession are entirely free and without any restrictions.

 

---

Objective 2: Professional Journalism 

Score: 2.30

The score for this objective barely changed this year, registering an increase of 0.05, and all indicators scored near the overall objective score. However, there was some movement in indicator scores. Modest increases occurred in Indicator 3, self-censorship; Indicator 5, pay levels for journalists; and Indicator 8, quality niche reporting. On the other hand, Indicator 6, entertainment does not eclipse news, and Indicator 7, technical equipment, both suffered noticeable declines.

Media objectivity was not highly rated by panelists. As Kontić commented, “We have to admit that our journalism is preoccupied by subjectivism. Objectively speaking, it is one of the problems of our journalism.”

In 1999, journalist associations adopted a unique Press Code of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which is derived from the established standard of European journalism practice. The main objective was to set the basic systems of press self-regulation, and for everyone in the print media to accept the code as binding. The Broadcasting Code of Practice for Radio and Television Programs that was adopted by the CRA represents binding guidelines for all electronic media, and its violation is subject to different sanctions issued by the CRA. Therefore, print journalists pay less attention to the principles issued in the code, which indicates the lack of the sense of social responsibility among owners, editors, and journalists alike. This explains why public trust in the current print media self-regulation system is questionable.

This also could explain why the Press Council hears three times more civil defamation suits than appeals.⁹ The council received a total of 59 complaints in 2008,¹⁰ compared to 2007 when it received 34 complaints. It is obvious that the number of complaints is significantly higher than the year before and actually represents the highest number of complaints received within one year since the Press Council’s inaugural session in 2000.

Of the 59 complaints in 2008, 13 were not upheld, 10 were upheld, 13 were resolved by mediation, and four were settled by self-regulation (by issuing denials and retractions). The remaining 19 cases fall in different categories. Eight regard citizens' queries. Five are cases that were shelved because the procedure to first request the newspaper to publish a correction was not obeyed and the press council was instead addressed first. The remaining six cases were either returned, the council declared it had no jurisdiction over the particular matter, or the press council report did not provide an appropriate explanation that would allow the case to be included in any category.

Self-censorship in journalists’ and editors’ work certainly exists and it is displayed mostly in private media, i.e. economic pressure on media is more common as a factor of self-censorship than political pressure. Hadžiarapović maintained that the practice of self-censorship in B&H “is no different than anywhere in the world.”

Key events and issues are covered by the media, and B&H has enough freedom to report even on issues related to the security of national or international importance. However, the quality of reporting varies from one news organization to another, as does the focus on particular issues. “You can read about certain things in just one newspaper, while you can hear about other things just in another newspaper or on television,” Halilović said.

There are differences in wages between private and public media and also among the different public broadcasters. But it seems that an upward trend in wages, especially in the public sector, is nowhere in sight. “The financial situation is deteriorating and wages are lower, with the prospect of becoming even worse,” Voćkić said. A characteristic of private media in particular is the lack of balance in wages, according to Jukić. “There are, for example, journalists who have very high wages, and then again there are those who have very low wages: an evident imbalance,” he said.

The upward trend of commercialization continued in 2008, and entertainment shows increasingly received priority over news and informational programs. In this regard, commercial as well as public television stations are competing in the production of various reality shows that are broadcast in prime time. But panelists noted that even with the growth of entertainment programming, many informational programs remain in B&H.

There are important differences among media outlets in terms of technical conditions for work and technical equipment. With regard to broadcasters, small local television stations are in a difficult situation, working with very outdated equipment. The situation with the state public broadcasting system is not much better. Voćkić said that the level of technical equipment is generally “the level from the 1984 Winter Olympic Games,” when television had state-of-the-art equipment. Moreover, although public television stations have rich archive materials, they are not digitized and thus hard to access. Some equipment at these broadcasters has been digitized recently, but the problem that always appears is connecting the newer equipment to the existing obsolete analog system.

Procurement of equipment for these broadcasters is difficult as well, given that they are public enterprises that must buy all equipment through tenders, causing considerable delays. Jukić provided an example of how this can pose serious problems. “Say, for example, something happens in Travnik, and our only camera there breaks down,” he said. “If we wanted to get a new camera, we would have to announce a tender and wait for 30 to 40 days for this to pass.”

On the other hand, several private televisions with national coverage have made progress in the process of procuring state-of-the-art digital equipment. Among them are OBN and NTV Hayat from Sarajevo, according to Zaimović, and private television outlets from other B&H regions are likely close behind. In the field of print media, technical conditions are not problematic because large investments are unnecessary. However, considerable differences exist among the different media outlets. Hadžiarapović said that “absolutely everything that is requested” for Dnevni Avaz is provided by the company’s management. On the other hand, as Nezavisne Novine journalist Čubro told the panel, the paper’s newsroom has problems with the Internet connections on which it depends, because the “newsroom” is situated at three locations across the country.

Even though Bosnian media has increased its focus on investigative stories, the media approach to investigative journalism cannot be considered consistent. Almost no media outlet can afford the “luxury” of putting two of three journalists to work on one case for several months. Additionally, the standards of investigative journalism are still not at an adequate level and some reports that do not meet basic criteria are often mistaken for investigative journalism.

While Bosnia does have shows that cover different social issues, these kinds of productions are few in number and are of questionable quality. The public broadcasters, who by mandate should be providing a wide variety of such programming, mainly compete in producing the same kind of programs that often have similar content.¹¹ Their program schemes thus do not differ much, and the funds they receive are not being used to finance a diversity of programming.

 

---

Objective 3: Plurality of News

Score: 3.02

This objective score improved noticeably, due to improvements in three indicators: Indicator 1, plurality of news sources; Indicator 5, independent broadcasters produce their own news programs; and Indicator 6, transparency of media ownership. As with last year, Indicator 3, objectivity of public media, and Indicator 7, coverage of a broad spectrum of social and minority issues, lagged behind the overall objective score by more than half a point. The rest of the indicators again ended up close to the overall score.

The majority of electronic media in B&H provide local and regional coverage. Only a few private television stations have nationwide coverage. Radio broadcasters are in a similar situation. On a national level, newspapers are distributed mainly along ethnic lines and entity borders, although lately these barriers are less discrete.

Bosniaks have no limitations in accessing media information. Generally speaking, people living in cities have better access to information sources. They have cable television, mainly available in urban areas, and broadband Internet. The country’s multiple media outlets allow citizens to verify information by checking one outlet against another. However, the quantity of media outlets does not necessarily correspond to quality—which is questionable in the case of B&H.

Panelists said that the B&H media market is very liberal and provides substantial regional coverage. A similar situation exists with regard to television stations, because regional television networks (mainly from Croatia and Serbia) have a strong presence in Bosnia through cable networks. No limitations exist for media from other countries, but interest in these is not very high.

Internet penetration continues to grow, but at a slower rate. The latest available information (2007) from CRA estimates the number of Internet users at 1,055,000. Penetration is estimated at 27.25 percent. Dial-up is still the most dominant service, utilized by 69 percent of Internet users, while the other 31 percent (mostly urban populations) use broadband Internet services such as ADSL and cable.¹² According to GFK research, most Internet users (72 percent) are in the 15-to-24 age bracket. The Federation of B&H has more users (37 percent) than RS (24 percent), while Internet is used considerably more in urban areas (39 percent) than in rural areas (26 percent).¹³

Local and regional public electronic media are most dependent on the government, financed directly from the budgets of municipalities and cantons. Those connections to the government raise questions about objectivity among the broadcasters of the Public RTV system—members of the RS opposition often claim that RTRS expresses mainly the interests of the ruling party. For example, during the assembly discussion on the 2007 Report on the Operation of RTRS, opposition delegate Dusan Stojicic accused the RTRS of becoming a service for incumbent authorities and the RS government. “We will find a way to pull RTRS out of the claws of the ruling party,” he said. ¹⁴

BHRT and RTVB&H could be considered more independent than RTRS, because of the strong presence of the international community in B&H, especially in Sarajevo. However, in 2008, political structures put significant effort into degrading media independence. For example, in September, the supervisory board of RTVB&H passed a motion to dismiss the general director from his position. Although the Constitutional Court of B&H temporarily suspended the board’s decision, the board did not obey the court order. Ultimately, however, in March 2009, the Constitutional Court did rule that the BHRT supervisory board decision to dismiss the general director was not lawful, and ordered that the board reinstate the general director to his position. ¹⁵

According to the Press Council’s data, ¹⁶ B&H has six news agencies. The two most important are FENA and SRNA, which are entity-based public agencies. Major independent news agencies include ONASA, covering the whole country; and NINA, which covers mainly the region of Herzegovina.

Public broadcasters produce slightly more of their own news and information programming than commercial television stations. The production of both news and entertainment programming at BHRT is about 40 percent,¹⁷ production at RTVFBH varies between 31 percent and 46 percent,¹⁸ and production at RTRS reached 54.4 percent in 2007.¹⁹ The level of production of the private television ATV from Banja Luka produces about 30 percent of its programming,²⁰ and TV Hayat from Sarajevo between 30 and 37 percent. ²¹ News and information programming holds an important place in the program schedules at all these television stations, whereas educational and cultural programs, as well as those intended for children and youth, make up a small proportion.

Media ownership is partly transparent—meaning that court registration for every company can be accessed, but the accuracy of the data listed in registration documents is questionable. Ownership of Internet media is often even more opaque. Hadžiarapović said that he finds it “unacceptable” that some online outlets’ owners, operating locations, and contact information are unclear.

The main print media are owned by a small group of local conglomerates. Large foreign media companies are not especially interested in the B&H market, likely because they are able to reach the country’s readers through the special B&H editions they issue from Serbia and Croatia. For example, Serbia’s daily Blic, owned by the Swiss publishing house Ringier, publishes an edition called Euro Blic, now thesecond-most-read newspaper in B&H.

Programs in national minority languages are quite rare. RS Radio broadcasts a program in the Ukrainian language for members of the Ukrainian minority. It seems that the issue of broadcasting programs in national minority languages is not a high priority, given that entity public broadcasters still do not comply with their legal obligation to broadcast equally in the languages of the three constituent peoples in B&H and to use equally the two official alphabets (Latin and Cyrillic). RTRS broadcasts its news programs exclusively in the Serbian language, using just the Cyrillic alphabet, while FTV generally broadcasts its news programs in the Croatian and Bosnian languages, and uses the Latin alphabet exclusively. ²²

The introduction of various social issues to media met with a great resistance on the occasion of the Sarajevo Queer Festival in September 2008. Not only were the participants of the festival attacked, but threatening letters were sent to the editorial staff of eFM Student radio, Radio Sarajevo, radio BH1, and the magazine Dani. They were harassed for informing the public about the events and supporting the organizers of the festival.²³

 

---

Objective 4: Business Management

Score: 2.82

Objective 4 showed strong growth over the past year, with an increase of 0.32. Panelists awarded higher scores to several indicators, such as Indicator 1, efficient management of media outlets; Indicator 2, multiple sources of revenue; and Indicator 5, government subsidizing of private media. All indicators scored very near the overall score.

Examples of good management can be found among B&H’s print, radio, and television media companies. Most of these companies are concentrated in Sarajevo, but others exist in major cities such as Banja Luka, Tuzla, and Mostar.

However, most electronic and print media are still burdened with challenges that prevent long-term stability and faster media development. The market is rather small, divided by ethnic and entity borders, glutted with numerous media, and hampered by the poor efficiency of state institutions. As such, the market is not a particularly promising environment for the development of successful media enterprises.

Generally speaking, a lack of competent management is one of the media’s most serious problems. In 2000, an IREX study stated, “The majority of Bosnian-Herzegovinian media ‘suffer’ from a lack of management know-how and skills necessary for surviving the so-called period of consolidation of the media industry in Bosnia-Herzegovina, which is currently underway.”²⁴ Although some progress has been made in this area since, especially by a number of private media entities, media company management remains an issue to be addressed.

In the country’s television market, the number of the active stations is relatively large. There are 44 television stations in total: the national public broadcaster and the two entity public broadcasters plus 15 local public and 29 private stations.²⁵ However, more than two-thirds have a coverage area of less than 500,000 inhabitants. RTV’s coverage is the largest, at 93 percent of the B&H territory. The other two entity public broadcasters cover mostly the areas of their entity, so that up to 92 percent of the inhabitants of the federation have access to FTV, and 78 percent of the inhabitants of RS have access to RTRS.²⁶

The most recent market study regarding media revenue was conducted in 2006. (Observers do not believe that figures have shifted substantially since.) The study found that overall revenues equaled KM 118,000,000, which is 40 percent more than 2003 (about KM 83,000,000). The most important revenue is from advertising, composing 45 percent of income. The RTV tax, which is not shared with commercial stations, is approximately 33 percent, and the remainder of revenue comes from public financing, donations, and other sources.

Public broadcasting stations captured more than 60 percent of the market revenue in 2006. Twenty-five percent of the overall revenue went to three private broadcasters (Hayat, Pink BH, and OBN), with the rest of the local television stations sharing about 15 percent. ²⁷

As noted in a CRA report in 2008,²⁸ the indicators of concentration confirm the fragmented state of the market, with no company or companies holding a significant market power. Financial data on territorial television broadcasting indicate that its financial position has been improving slowly for the past four years. As distinguished from the unconsolidated public services, the three leading commercial television outlets made noticeable market progress. How the small commercial stations manage to survive in the poor market, though, is still unclear.

In the current radio market, 144 radio stations are active. They include three public services, 60 public stations, and 81 private stations.²⁹ The radio market has seen sales growth since 2003. The revenue earned by radio stations in 2006 was KM 30,000,000, an increase of 14.6 percent over 2005.³⁰ The main source of revenue, about 56 percent in 2006, is selling advertising and other activities related to “marketing”—sponsorship, teleshopping, and other activities such as the broadcasting of greetings and SMS messages.

Public funding is the second most prevalent source of revenue, followed by the selling of programs. Proceeds from advertising and donations show positive growth between 2003 and 2006, and revenue from subscriptions are stable. The radio market is fragmented, however; the first 10 operators make less than 40 percent of the overall market revenue, whereas 60 percent is distributed among more than 130 radio stations with insignificant interests in the market. Also, no single operator makes more than 15 percent.

With regard to advertising, the trend evident in 2006 and 2007 was that private stations have reached a higher market level than the other two types of stations. This can be explained by their complete focus on the market as their source of income—they do not receive money from subscription fees or the state budget.

According to Zaimović, the biggest slice of the advertising pie goes to television outlets, with 68 percent. Print media receive only six percent. Zaimović describes Bosnian advertising as “a medium-developed market” that is centered in the capital and several big cities, with the radio segment penetrating only slightly more. Zaimović and Kontić said that market share in the printed media will stay low, due to uneven distribution. The main markets in printed advertising are the three largest cities, which results in a low market development value.

In spite of their extremely difficult position, printed publishers are still not ready to respond to the requests of the advertising agencies or to begin with the independent monitoring of the circulation. Zaimović provided an example: “About six or seven years ago, there was an initiative to establish an office for monitoring the circulation of the newspapers according to the Polish model, but the newspaper owners were not interested. They were afraid that this information would have a negative influence on advertisers. [Recently] there has been a new effort to establish the office. International advertisers demand these numbers, and in order to attract them, this kind of monitoring is necessary.”

Although advertising is the main source of funding for the federation’s public television broadcaster, the other public television stations receive income from various sources. They can afford to lower the price of advertising, thus becoming a destabilizing market factor and endangering private stations that depend almost exclusively on advertisements. Noting this, the CRA suggests “monitoring of the behavior of public broadcasters and their practice in selling the space for advertising.”³¹

Income from RTV taxes varies between 80 percent and 85 percent, whereas in 2007, taxes for the federation broadcaster’s tax revenue only represented 44 percent of its income. The problem of tax collection is still far from being solved. Although the degree of collection slightly improved in 2007 when compared to 2006 (67 percent versus 63 percent), the current level is not enough to enable normal operation of the public broadcasters. ³²

Governmental subsidies for independent media is not considered to be a burning issue, because these subsidies are rather rare and do not have a substantial impact on the independence of private media. However, a case that occurred in December 2008 shows that the practices of certain segments of governmental authorities clash with the usual democratic standards. Members of the Association of Private Radio and Television Stations commented on the provision of KM 1,300,000 of public funds to the media in Herzegovina-Neretva canton. They claimed that the authorities of this canton behaved improperly when inviting tenders for radio and television stations for projects. According to the allegations, the funds were allocated, mainly to three larger media, before the tender was completed.³³

Data gathered by market research agencies is still not used to its full potential in Bosnia, but it is increasingly seen as an important instrument to attract advertisers and adjust programming to appeal to more viewers. Only television stations with national coverage can afford the luxury of using research; a large number of local television and radio stations do not use these services. Three public broadcasters as well as three commercial television stations receive daily data on viewer ratings, which are researched by Mareco Index Bosnia for the Joint Media Industry Association. The same research agency uses the diary method to determine the listener ratings.

Moreover, as radio expert Dusan Masic pointed out, in B&H “it is not easy to explain that buying research on listener ratings is as important for the existence of one radio as are the mixing console or the receiver. You will immediately hear that the research is fixed, tuned, or something similar.” ³⁴ In addition to this agency’s market research, there are also GfK BH, Gallup, and others that survey viewer ratings, listener ratings, and reader ratings of the media, as well as Internet habits and use.

There is no legal obligation to reveal circulation data. And newspaper publishers have shown no readiness to organize a system, similar to that of electronic media, for independently monitoring their medium. As a result, the only readership data come from the independent agencies that conduct polls and estimate circulation of certain media.

Since early 2006, data on viewer ratings of television programs have measured electronically. This puts B&H is in the same position as other countries in the region (Slovenia, Serbia, and Croatia). Even though there are objections about the reliability of the results measured with peoplemeters, the objections do not question the entire evaluation system. As Zaimović stated: “There are ways to find out if someone has manipulated the peoplemeter. It is routine for the media to state that they are in a better position than they actually are. The main thing is that the advertisers accept the given data and buy advertising time based on those numbers.”

 

---

Objective 5: Supporting Institutions

Score: 2.97

Objective 5 experienced a very healthy increase of 0.42 compared with last year, and only two indicators did not see such improvement in the minds of panelists. Indicator 2, professional associations, and Indicator 4, journalism education, remained much the same as last year. Furthermore, Indicator 4 was the only one that did not score relatively close to the overall objective score. It lagged behind by more than a half point.

Two associations represent broadcasters: the Association of Independent Electronic Media and the Association of Private Radio and Television Stations in B&H. In 2005, they set up a new professional organization called Association of the Media Industry (UMI). It represents an association of advertising agencies and broadcasters founded with the aim of providing the best possible data on broadcast viewer and listener ratings in order to meet the needs of broadcasters and advertisers. Print media is represented by the Association of Graphic, Publishing, and Media Employees in B&H (GIM). The independence of these institutions does not pose a serious problem in B&H, but the general lack of regulation of practically all segments of the B&H state, as well as fragmentation of society, hampers the operation of these associations. With the exception of UMI, they can hardly be described as efficient.

There are also six journalist associations, most of which are generally inactive. “If you ask ordinary people if these associations exist, they have no idea,” said Jukić, Federal Television program director. “The only one they might know about is the Association of BH Journalists, because it issues some press releases, which is important and has an effect both on the public and on journalists.” There is no doubt that such a large number of associations exists not to fulfill the needs of the professional community but, primarily, to assist in maintaining ethnic divisions. Kontić, director of Sarajevo’s Mediacentar, explained: “The problem is that journalist associations, like many other things in this country, are divided along ethnic lines. They are satisfied with having founded themselves or with having, in a way, blocked the only association that functions. These associations practically never or very rarely speak up.” Halilović said these associations “speak up when an ethnic group is affected or when there is really something they must respond to.” The level of cooperation among the different associations is very low.

Rudić, who heads one of these associations, BH Journalists, stressed that: “In addition to the many associations, there are also three unions of media employees, which as a rule rarely speak up, even when journalists are physically assaulted. Despite the fragmentation and the weakness of professional associations, their significance should not be underestimated. Kontić mentions that a recent reaction by BH Journalists played a crucial role in reshaping the Islamic Community’s discourse regarding reports in the daily Oslobodjenje. Before the association’s reaction, the rhetoric from the office of the Islamic Community’s head was arrogant. But right after the association slammed its rhetoric, press releases issued by the office took on a completely different tone, appropriate for the usual democratic exchange of arguments.”

As in previous years, the panelists cited the Helsinki Committee for Media, which this year issued a number of press releases regarding violations of rights of journalists and media. The Helsinki committee consistently stands in the defense of these rights. Participants also cited the support of the Center for Civil Initiatives and the organization Udruzene zene Banjaluke (Associated Women of Banja Luka).

Journalism education programs are available at four public faculties and one private faculty in B&H. Unfortunately, the panelists’ general opinion is that the staff graduating from these faculties do not have an adequate level of training and lack the practical know-how to work independently as journalists. RTRS Program Director Mira Lolić-Močević emphasized that “it is a real problem that people coming from faculties in principle have no experience.” Despite that and the shortage of jobs to absorb all the journalism graduates, there is still a lot of student interest in journalism studies and some schools are overcrowded. Given their limited staff, they find it hard to manage the excessive number of journalism students.

On the other hand, short-term journalism training programs, which have been present in B&H for years, generally received higher marks than the classic, academic programs. Jukić said, “I attended many of them when I was younger and they helped me greatly in my work. I attended (university) journalism studies jointly in Mostar when they were first opened, and they were very poor and came from a very poor position—practically from a position of war, not an educational one. Therefore, I can say that I learned the most about journalism from the people in the [short-term] courses. That is why I think they are important, although there is no interest in them right now.”

Despite some stagnation, there are still a handful of organizations that regularly offer training courses for media staff, primarily young journalists. These include Mediacentar Sarajevo and Mediaplan, as well as the Balkan Investigative Reporting Network and the Office of the Council of Europe, which occasionally organizes training programs for journalists. Most media organizations do not have special budgets for mid-career journalism training; they rely on courses funded by donors. Another problem identified in group discussion is faced by private media outlets when they have to send journalists for training outside the newsroom. Nezavisne Novine journalist Čubro believes there is a “problem particularly in private media outlets because they are working on the edge of their capacities and it is very hard for them to allow a journalist to be away from the newsroom for three to 10 days.”

Mediacentar Sarajevo Director Kontić pointed out other challenges to organizing such training: “There are a lot of organizations that hold courses, but the question is whether there is saturation. What is the relationship between media outlets and the organizations doing that? I think there are excellent opportunities. We have two or three programs in investigative journalism. We enroll a lot of people, not just from Bosnia-Herzegovina, but also from the region. But the question now is what the relationship is between us and the media? The media in a way no longer seems to have time for us, i.e. people are going about their business, and the relationship seems to be lost a little.”

It is important to note that training programs in media management are rarely organized, although there is a strong need for them, and the focus of media training programs should probably move in that direction.

Printing sources, printing offices, and media distribution channels do not hinder the development of media. There is pronounced pluralism in this area and resources are distributed according to market-driven principles. A panel discussion characterized the Bosnian advertising market as “medium developed.” We can say the same is true of the Internet. Access is not conditioned by political concessions but, as in the case of the press, it is characterized by underdevelopment. Broadband Internet services are available only in cities, while users in small towns and rural areas generally use dial-up access.

 

---

Panel Participants

Mehmed Halilović, assistant ombudsman on media for the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Sarajevo
Milenko Voćkić, director, BHT 1, Sarajevo
Zoran Ćatić, editor in chief, student radio eFM, Sarajevo
Mira Lolić-Močević, program director, RTRS TV, Banjaluka
Boro Kontić, director, Mediacentar Sarajevo, Sarajevo
Senad Zaimović, general manager, Marketing Agency Fabrika, Sarajevo
Adi Hadžiarapović, political reporter and web editor, Dnevni Avaz newspaper, Sarajevo
Zvonimir Jukić, executive program and broadcasting director, FTV, Sarajevo
Borka Rudić, secretary general, BH Journalists Association, Sarajevo
Nedim Dervisbegović, editor of the web-portal and radio station, Radio Sarajevo, Sarajevo
Mirza Čubro, journalist, Nezavisne Novine newspaper, Banja Luka

The opinions of the following research participant, who did not take part in the panel discussion, were used in preparing this report:

Dunja Mijatović, director of the broadcasting division, Communications Regulatory Agency, Sarajevo

Moderator and Author:

Amer Džihana, research coordinator,Mediacentar Sarajevo, Sarajevo

The Bosnia and Herzegovina study was coordinated by, and conducted in partnership with, Mediacentar Sarajevo, Sarajevo. The panel discussion was convened on November 27, 2008.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions presented in the chapter on Bosnia & Herzegovina are those of the panel participants and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of Mediacentar Sarajevo.

 

---