NGO INFO-CENTRE
MACEDONIAN CENTRE FOR EUROPEAN TRAINING
MEDIA MONITORING July – August 2010
SKOPJE, October 2010
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ...... 3 I QUANTITATIVE OVERVIEW ...... 3 II QUALITY ANALYSIS ...... 4 1. THE INCIDENT IN THE PARLIAMENT AND POLITICAL DIALOGUE ...... 4 2. THE „CANNABIS“ AFFAIR INVOLVING THE FARMER DUŠKO ILIEVSKI ...... 7 3. THE WORK OF THE STATE COMMISSION FOR PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ...... 11 4. EU STABILISATION AND ASSOCIATION COUNCIL ...... 15 5. FIRING OF JOURNALISTS BY KANAL 5 TV ...... 16 6. THE CONTROVERSIAL STATEMENTS BY MACEDONIAN AMBASSADOR TO NATO MARTIN TRENEVSKI ...... 19 7. THE WORK OF THE COMMISSION FOR LUSTRATION ...... 21 8. REPUBLIC DAY ...... 23 III CONCLUSIONS ...... 25
2
INTRODUCTION The NGO Info-centre, in cooperation with the Macedonian Centre for European Training (MCET), continues with the implementation of its programme for monitoring of quality of media coverage of the European integration processes in Macedonia in 2010. The monitoring programme was supported by the Foundation Open Society Institute Macedonia. This report covers the period July 1-August 31, 2010, and offers analysis of the quotation of reporting and presented information on several important issues related to the EU integration processes: The incident in the Parliament of Macedonia and the functioning of political dialogue; the “Cannabis affair” involving Duško Ilievski; the work of the State Commission for Prevention of Corruption (SCPC); the firing of journalists by Kanal 5 TV; the state leadership’s appearances and addresses on Republic Day – August 2; the work of the Commission on Lustration; recommendations to Macedonia presented by EU Stabilisation and Association Council; and the controversial statements by Macedonian Ambassador to NATO Martin Trenevski. The analyses includes the coverage in eight daily newspapers (“Utrinski vesnik”; “Dnevnik”; “Vest”; “Večer”; “Vreme”; “Nova Makedonija”, “Špic” and “Koha”) and the central news programmes aired on seven TV stations that broadcast nationally and over the satellite (A1 TV; Kanal 5 TV; Sitel TV; Telma TV; MTV 1; Alfa TV; and Alsat TV). It should be noted that, due to technical reasons, we weren’t able to monitor “Koha” daily's reporting and coverage in the period July 15 - August 1, 2010. The monitoring focused on the following genres: news, statements, reports, commentary/reports, commentaries, analyses, interviews, photo-news, and op-ed articles and columns in daily newspapers that referred to topics and issues covered by this monitoring.
I QUANTITATIVE OVERVIEW Between July 1 and Auguts 31, 2010, the analysis included a total of 952 items; 497 of them aired in TV news programmes (52%), while the remaining 455 (48%) were published by the daily newspapers. The table of published articles in broadcast media, by numbers: - „А1“ - 92 (10%) - „МTV 1“ - 85 (9%) - „Telma“ - 72 (8%) - “Alpha” - 70 (7%) - „Sitel" - 67 (7%) - “Kanal 5” - 62 (7%) - „Alsat M" - 49 (5%)
The table of published articles in print media, by numbers: - „Utrinski vesnik“ - 98 (10%) - “Vreme” - 77 (8%) - „Špic“ - 67 (7%) - “Dnevnik” - 67 (7%) - „Nova Makedonija” - 52 (5%) - “Vest” - 42 (4%) - „Večer“ - 40 (4%) - “Koha” - 12 (1%) In terms of the genres used in the coverage, the break-down is as follows: - Reports - 799 (84%);
3
- Statements - 39 (4%) - Commentaries - 35 (4%); - Columns - 20 (2%); - News - 19 (2%); - Commentary/Reports - 18 (2%) - Interviews - 15 (1%); - Analyses - 5 (0.5%). - Photo-news - 2 (0.5%)
In terms of the covered topics, the break-down by numbers is as follows:
- The incident in the Parliament – 401 (42%) - The „Cannabis“ affair involving the farmer Duško Ilievski - 185 (19%) - The work of the SCPC 126 (13%) - Firing of journalists by Kanal 5 TV - 65 (7%) - Republic Day - 53 (6%) - The controversial statements by Ambassador to NATO Martin Trenevski - 51 (5%) - The work of the Commission for Lustration – 40 (4%) - EU Stabilisation and Association Council - 31 (3%)
II QUALITY ANALYSIS
1. THE INCIDENT IN THE PARLIAMENT AND POLITICAL DIALOGUE In the period covered by this report, the media coverage was absolutely dominated by the incident in the Parliament of Macedonia, with a total of 401 media articles dedicated to the issue, 42% of the total number of items covered by the analysis. Due to the complex nature of the case itself, and the huge coverage it received, it was covered and presented in a somewhat different fashion, compared to the other topics covered by this report. The media started the intensive reporting on the events in the Parliament on July 1, 2010, from the very beginning, i.e. from the moment the majority turned down the proposed Law on Employees of Companies under Receivership Procedures. The media reported that when opposition MPs1 went out to inform the Association of Employees of Companies under Receivership "Unit" (Kumanovo) about the outcome of the vote, they noticed the meeting was recorded on video by an unknown persons. They engaged in a verbal and physical altercation, and the Parliamentary Security officers had to intervene to prevent further escalation. The analyses of the coverage shows that, up to this moment, the public is well informed about what happened in the Parliament. From that point on, however, the case takes a number of twists and turns, many issues get opened and receive contradictory comments, depending on whether the statement comes from the ruling coalition or the opposition. There was abundance of statements, reports, analyses, columns dedicated to the incident in the media and a casual observer could conclude that the public was timely informed, in much detail, about the events that transpired at the Parliament. In effect, however, such torrential outpour of coverage resulted in the public being left confused, with many questions on what happened in the Parliament and who was responsible for the incident remaining unanswered.
The media presented the statements by opposition MPs who claimed that "we witnessed the rape of democracy“ and that members of the “Alfa” Police Unit (special force that fights street and organized crime) restricted their free movement in the Parliament. The Ministry of Interior came forward with a statement that a police officer was prevented from completing his tasks in
1 Almost all media covered by the monitoring carried the statements of Vesna Bendevska, Vlado Bučkovski, Cvetanka Ivanova, Goran Misovski, Tome Čingovski and Jani Makraduli.
4 the Parliament and denied there were members of the "Alfa" Unit on the scene. The opposition noted that democratic order was threatened by the very presence of the Police in the Parliament, furthermore, it had access to the CCTV system of the Parliament, while the Ministry of Interior commented that the democracy was under threat of the “shameless vandalism“2 and thuggish and unbecoming actions of a number of MPs. The opposition, as reported by the media, claimed that Article 43 of the Law on the Parliament was violated, while the Minister of Interior invoked provisions in the Law on the Internal Affairs. The opposition also accused the Speaker of the Parliament Veljanovski for allowing the executive branch of the Government to take-over the Parliament, while Minister Jankulovska said that the incident was a part of a scenario to undermine the Euro-Atlantic aspirations of the state.
The media reported the letter written by Jankulovska, which led to the initiative for her impeachment, as well as the letters of the leaderships of VMRO-DPMNE and SDSM political parties, that intensified the mutual accusations going back and forth between them. One characteristic of the coverage of the incident was that, in addition to the numerous statements they gave to the media, politicians used their regular columns in the print media to open a number of questions related to the incident.3
The media also reported the fact that the Police invited MPs Vlado Bučkovski and Vesna Bendevska for a questioning (the Macedonian term is “informative conversation"). The statement of the Secretary General of the Parliament Žarko Denkoski4 who, among other things, promised an internal investigation to determine who and how made the changes in the daily logs of the Archives and Records Office, was carried by almost all media. A number of print media offered a detailed explanation of proper procedures and conditions that need to be met for the Parliamentary Committee on Mandate and Immunity Issues to take action. Speculations appeared in the media that the invitations for informative conversations were revoked only after U.S. Ambassador Philip Reeker talked to Minister Gordana Jankulovska and the reaction by EU Ambassador Erwan Fouere. The media paid special attention to the initiatives for impeachment of Speaker of Parliament Veljanovski and Minister of Interior Jankulovska. The press was much more careful in the reporting of views and positions presented by the MPs from the Parliamentary Pulpit. Most media presented balanced coverage of the impeachment debate and criticized the unbecoming behaviour by MPs. While most media refrained from publishing the insults MPs directed at each other, some media did print a number of inappropriate language:“Stefanovska had rather original address to the Head of SDSM Parliamentary Club Cvetanka Ivanova: 'Mother, wife, grandmother, mother-in-law, what is your problem; what's with that aggression that made you, coordinator of a Parliamentary Club, want to beat up men in the Parliament5“; „Filthy unwashed pig; „human lavatory“; „hillbilly woman“; „imbecile“; „unwashed“; "go get medical help“; „crazy woman“; „shameless MPs“; „lazy bones“; „I called a healer in Jurumleri, I could take you to her later“; „I guess they messed up your medication“; „you are in need of another institution"; "pawn"; "fascist letter"; "puppet"; "get some treatment for your frustrations"; "you oxen"; "let's step outside to show you what's what" - were just some of the insults that VMRO-DPMNE claims were uttered by SDSM's MPs over the last two sessions of the Parliament“.6 The media commented on the fact that impeachments for which the outcome was known in advance made little sense, and criticized the general behaviour and conduct of MPs in the debates.“The debate took place in an almost empty hall, with no more than about two dozen MPs present at any given time. It was almost completely empty during the Germany-Uruguay football game. Some MPs watched the game at the Parliament's Cafeteria, some in their offices,
2 The letter by Minister of Interior Jankulovska to the Speaker of the Parliament Veljanovski 3 Vlatko Gjorčev (Špic, July 9, 2010), Ivon Veličkovski (Špic, July 6 and July 13, 2010), Teuta Arifi (Dnevnik, July 12, 2010). 4 “First the home address is checked, and if the person can’t be found at home, the invitations are sent to his or her employer’s address. After I realized that the proper procedure was not followed, I revoked the invitations. The Parliament can’t be a service for the MOI or some police precinct. We can’t have the MOI demand from the Parliament to bring them MPs for conversation”. 5 Utrinski vesnik, July 12, 2010 6 Večer, July 12, 2010
5 and members of the opposition even followed the game from laptop computers in the Plenary Hall"7, as well as the lengthy debates: "The ‘marathon’ debate... will cost the state additional €20,000 of public money“ 8.
For days on end, the media reported the opposing views on the creation of an inquiry commission, its composition and competences. In an attempt to offer further explanation of statements made by political figures and officials, some print media offered explanations of more technical terms and aspects of their statements. For example, “Utrinski vesnik”, “Nova Makedonija” and “Špic” provided extensive interpretation of Article 43 of the Law on the Parliament, the Rules and Procedures of the Parliament, and other by-laws and legislation related to the incident, including the Constitution of Macedonia. Alongside the debate on the incident and the inquiry committee, the media reported on opposition’s proposals from changes in the Parliamentary Rules and Procedures. The opposition insisted on the right to include one item of its own on the agenda of every session, and also demanded, as a package, for the Parliament to debate the "Skopje 2014” project, the Audit Reports and supervisory sessions. The media reported that the ruling majority accepted the initiative to allow the opposition to put an item on the agenda once per month, considering the other demands an attempt at black-mail. VMRO-DPMNE accused SDSM that it threatened the report of the European Commission on Macedonia, and some media noted that: "The changes in the Rules and Regulations (adopted two years ago, during the opposition’s boycott of the Parliament) were already agreed at a leadership meeting in August of last year, and the Parliament was to adopt them by December 2009, at the latest. Indeed, the opposition did condition its support for the four laws, of great importance for Macedonia to get a positive progress report from the European Commission last year, with the adoption of the changes of the Rules and Regulations"9.
In the meantime, the media reported on the new measures introduced by Speaker Veljanovski10, which the opposition considered as additional violations of the Law on the Assembly of RM, since they were „adopted without prior consultations with coordinators of parliamentary clubs“ 11.
The events in the Parliament last July, from the incident to the establishment of the inquiry committee, opened a series of questions that remain unanswered. Some of the questions raised by the media, directly related to the incident, were: did the Speaker approved the Police’s presence in the Parliament Building and access to the CCTV recordings; did Veljanovski allowed officers to carry weapons in the Parliament and take actions against MPs, in front of and inside the Parliament; why no charges were brought against MPs if they violated the order in the Parliment; does the Ministry of Interior have the legal competence and authorisation to conduct police and video surveillance of the activities of MPs and why were the employees from the companies under receivership procedures present in the Parliament. The media raised several other questions: could it be a regular practice, in a democratic state, for the police to engage in clandestine preventive filming of events whenever there is a potential for disturbances of public order; does the Ministry of Interior conduct similar photo and video surveillance of other locations to prevent potential risks for disturbances of public order; is the secret police abused to prevent the citizens’ rights to peaceful protest.
7 Utrinski vesnik, July 12, 2010 8 Nova Makedonija, July 12, 2010 9 Utrinski vesnik, July 2, 2010 10 The new measures propose the creation of Parliament’s internal security detail, Code of Ethics for the MPs, work some details in the Parliament’s regulations on internal rules of conduct and order, officers of the public administration bodies will need special approval to enter the Parliament, proper information from MOI on the need for additional security measures to be implemented bz the Police, MOIs officer to have special insignia and identification when they work in the Parliament. 11 Alfa TV, July 8, 2010
6
Columnists raised other issues in the daily newspapers:“will the Ministry of Interior maintain consistency and will charge the employees of the companies under receivership with misdemeanour charges for "disorderly conduct and making noise in front of the Parliament"12, were the incidents a direct result of the ignoring of parliamentary democracy and the unwillingness of the majority to protect the Parliament from itself13, did the majority fear the Government and their party leader14, could the citizens be safe from the fear that uninvited people, armed and in civilian clothes, sent by the Minister of Interior personally, invade their homes, install bugging equipment, photograph and film the members of the household15.
In the coverage of the events in the Parliament, the journalists never neglected the European dimension and the importance of those developments from the viewpoint of European integration processes. Some media reported the views of the opposition that pointed out at the European agenda and the resulting obligations:“SDSM points out at violations of Article 43, which was introduced into the 2008 Law on the Assembly of RM, on suggestion of the European Commission, after the fistfight between MPs from DUI and DPA in the Parliament” 16, while some media analyzed the incident in comparison with the incident of 2007: „Three years ago (in the previous Parliament), an inquiry committee was set-up after a fistfight between MPs from the Albanian bloc. However, the conclusions of the special body never made it into a parliamentary debate"17; “Three years ago, the Parliament also tried to clear up a security incident in the Parliament involving MPs and policemen. Although an inquiry committee was created, and MPs involved in the incidents testified and gave their own versions of who said what, who hit whom and what type of weapons somebody carried, nobody was named responsible. The new Rules and Regulations and the Law on the Assembly of RM provide the possibility to use the findings of inquiry committees as evidence in procedures to determine responsibility” 18.
The media carried the views of EU Ambassador Fouere, who persistently reminded everybody that "Macedonia has to speed up reforms, improve political dialogues and adopt the laws carrying the European flag if it wants to improve her image before the November progress report on EU integration processes"19. Fouere expressed his concerns over the harsh language used by politicians, noting that it was not characteristic of a democracy and presented EU's expectations: "What we want to hear in Macedonia is the language of consensus, unity, since that is the language that reflects a country ready to join EU, a candidate-country, and a language that the citizens of Macedonia would prefer over the language used lately". The press also carried the appeal of EU Enlargement Commissioner Stefan Füle: “Brussels invites all actors to immediately engage in a direct dialogue, generate better climate and build mutual trust. The political dialogue is a common responsibility of the ruling party and the opposition, in which both will demonstrate constructive approach and sincere efforts”.
2. THE „CANNABIS“ AFFAIR INVOLVING THE FARMER DUŠKO ILIEVSKI The monitoring of media coverage of the arrest and detention of dairy farmer Duško Ilievski from Bitola leads to the conclusion that majority of the media covered by this monitoring followed the case and ensured solid coverage. Most media, in addition to the statements by representatives of state authorities, the opposition and members of Ilievski family, consulted legal experts and NGO representatives in their reporting. They provided information on all key developments of the case: The arrest and detention of three men from the Ilievski family; the search of their home and the difficult situation the women of the family face after the arrest of
12 Žarko Trajanovski, Dnevnik, July 7, 2010 13 Teuta Arifi, Dnevnik, July 12, 2010 14 Ivon Veličkovski, Špic, July 6, 2010 15 Ana Pavlovska-Daneva, Utrinski vesnik, July 12, 2010 16 Utrinski vesnik, July 5, 2010 17 Utrinski vesnik, July 6, 2010 18 Nova Makedonija, July 12, 2010 19 Dnevnik, July 6, 2010
7 their husbands; on the presence of the self-growing wild cannabis in the fields around Bitola and in the yards of several public institutions in Bitola; on the protests organized by the opposition and the citizens in Bitola and Prilep, and the petition signed in support of Ilievski's; the counter- protests of several NGOs in Bitola and Skopje; the transfer of the case from the Municipal Court in Bitola to the Skopje Office of Public Prosecution's organized crime department; the end of the detention allowing the Ilievski's to defend themselves from freedom; and the petition Duško Ilievski filed to the Office of the Ombudsman over human rights violations in the procedure.
The analysis shows that most media condemned Illievski’s arrest and commented that the whole case was an act of political revenge and attempt to intimidate and silence the citizens that publicly disagree with Government’s policies. Some media, on the other hand, didn't report all the aspects of the case, thus denying their readers a comprehensive coverage through their selective approach. Also, majority of the media failed to offer in-depth analysis of whether the police exceeded its authority in the search of Ilievski’s household, and the legal omissions in the whole process and which human rights may have been violated.
The media covered the protests organized by the opposition and the citizens of Prilep and Bitola, reacting to the detention of Ilievski, his father and brother, supporting their innocence and demanding that they are freed immediately. The coverage in most media notes the increased engagement of common citizens to dispute and oppose the decisions of the court. Some citizens believed that it was an attempt of political pressure and revanchisme intended to intimidate and silence those who dare think differently: “I think he is innocent and demands his justice; it is the state that is guilty of robbing him of the money for the milk"; "I think they are an honest family that would never do something that is dangerous for the young population"; "This is a great injustice"; "This dictatorship can now only move to despotism. This beautiful people you see around in its multitude will sign for justice”.20 The media carried statements from Ilievski’s neighbours: “I know Duško and his brother Cane since they were children, they practically grew up in my yard. Everything they have they earned through hard work and toil. There is not a single dark spot on their lives. This is a government harangue against Duško for not keeping his mouth shut we he got robbed by “Swedmilk”. They have every right to protest. Would you shut up if somebody stole €50,000 from you” 21.
At the same time, the majority of the media covered the counter-protests organized by several NGOs in Skopje in Bitola, involved in the "Stop the Spread of Drug-Abuse” initiative, who supported the arrest and attacked the opposition for standing for drugs producres: “We want to raise the alarm in the public and offer our criticism of SDMS for such an irresponsible and incorrect behaviour that gives extremely bad examples to young generations. We don’t want to believe that SDSM sees production of narcotics as something that needs protection or support. Therefore, we demand from SDSM to distance itself and condemn the case” 22, (Blagica Korovin, Macedonian Youth Association). The media carried the opposition reactions to those protests that the organizations were under direct control of VMRO-DPMNE: “At a press- conference, SDSM presented proof that Korovin was not non-governmental activist, but member of VMRO-DMPNE. Here are the facts. Blagica Korovin, the young lady making statements yesterday is a prominent member of VMRO-DPMNE, and she was candidate for Radoviš Municipal Council in the 2009 Local Elections"23 (Stevče Jakimovski, SDSM). The media covered the vandalism in Bitola, perpetrated by NGO activists in front of SDSM’s Bitola offices: “Activists from VMRO-DPMNE, presenting themselves as members of the “Youth European Forum”, tore down the photos of Duško Ilievski posted on panels in front of the Bitola Offices of SDSM and draw swastikas on the photos"24.
20 Telma TV, Petition supporting Ilievski, Prilep, July 20, 2010 21Utrinski vesnik, July 20, 2010 22 MTV1, July 17, 2010 23 Alfa TV, July 21, 2010 24 Vreme, July 26, 2010
8
Majority of the media covered by this monitoring didn't report the protests organized by the Union of High-School Students and the Student Parliament, in support of the NGOs' counter- protests. The Union of High School Students opposed “...all vices that threaten the future and the health of the youth. Therefore, as an association representing the interests of the youth, we find it unthinkable and unacceptable to see a political party standing in defence of a suspect producer of illegal narcotics yesterday” 25, (Ivo Nikolov, Union of High School Students), while the Student Parliament said that: “...it is unprecedented for a political party to defend a suspected producer of narcotic drugs. Hypothetically, just imagine if the drugs, if not seized, made it into the hands of the young people. What would have happened and who would have been responsible?”26 (Trajče Mitev, executive member of the Student Parliament). The media that did cover those events commented: “For the first time in the history of university and high school students’ movements, their activists lined up behind the Ministry of Interior and Ilievski’s arrest. The university and high school students reacted on Ilievski’s case, which never happened before”.27.
The media carried the frequent statements on the arrest of the three members of Ilievski family by both the government and the opposition. Prime Minister Gruevski commented: “I am perplexed by SDSM’s reactions that he (Ilievski) was their member and we did all of this on purpose. How could we do it on purpose if the marihuana grew there for months. It was well grown back when Branko Crvenkovski visited him. We couldn't have predicted that Branko would go to a house that has marijuana growing in the yard. That was his choice, not ours. It is cultivated hemp, not wild growing one. That is the information that I got from the Ministry of Interior, which means that somebody was cultivating it and taking care of it"28. The opposition, on the other hand, protested: „... this is a classic example of fabricated political process used by Gruevski's Government to deal with its political opponents and the citizens that oppose its policies of false promises. There is no way to government’s madness. Instead of trying to resolve the crime at “Swedmilk”, where Moshe Baum and others embezzled over €30 million, VMRO-DPMNE has fallen on a hard-working family"29 (Ilija Jovanoski, President of SDSM Municipal Committee from Prilep). The frequency and the contents of the statements given by both the opposition and the government point out that the event was used by them for strong fight of words and mutual accusations: “SDSM put strong political pressure on the institutions, taking the defence of Duško the Milkman and declaring him innocent, in spite of the fact that 207 plants of marijuana were seized yesterday from his family's property"30 (Aleksandar Bičikliski, VMRO-DPMNE spokesperson), while SDSM used a press conference to counter: “Duško Ilievski’s arrest was a monstrous scenario by Gruevski and VMRO-DPMNE and they will be held responsible for it” (Goran Minčev, MP from the SDSM).
The media presented the statements issued by Ilievski’s defence lawyers:“This is a flagrant example of the police and the prosecution lacking any material evidence to incriminate Ilievski, and yet they moved to request that he is detained” 31 (Ilievski’s lawyer Gjorgiev). He concluded that:“The fact that the case of the dairy farmers was taken to the Organized Crime Department in Skopje is outside of the provisions of the Criminal Code, having in mind that the offence they are charged with, illegal production and trafficking of narcotics and precursors, can't be presented as organized crime, since there is no case of association with intent to commit crime"32.
Ilievski’s detention was strongly condemned by a number of legal experts and NGOs. Mirjana Najčevsks comments:“It means that the Government has decided that it could, at any given
25 MTV1, July 16, 2010 26 MTV1, July 16, 2010 27 Telma TV, July 16, 2010 28 Utrinski vesnik, July 17, 2010 29 Nova Makedonija, July 21, 2010 30 Utrinski vesnik, July 17, 2010 31 Utrinski vesnik, July 28, 2010 32 Utrinski vesnik, July 28, 2010
9 time, accuse or suspect anybody of anything, thus spreading fear and insecurity among the citizens that they, too, could find themselves in the same situation, for whatever reason, should they decide to oppose the Government”. She is convinced that violations of basic human rights took place and the dignity of the family was undermined:“So many procedural mistakes were made, so many mistakes in terms of the proper legal procedures, that any court in any truly democratic country would dismiss the case immediately over those mistakes”.33 According to the Coalition of NGOs for Fair Trials, the detention is clear example of discrimination and violation of the principle of presumption of innocence. Anica Tomsić Stojkovska said:“What we find strange is the fact that so many other cases were not treated as spectacularly, with televised footage of a person that may have been involved in cultivation and possession of marijuana, and the whole case, instead of being treated as violation of one’s human rights, turned into a battlefield for the political parties” 34. The media presented the opinion of the Coalition for Fair Trial that:“the European Convention is quite clear that the investigative judge has the right to react if a suspect’s rights or the principle of presumption of innocence were violated, which has not happened with the Macedonian judiciary so far” 35. In the context of Macedonian judiciary, Najčevska comments:“Simply said, our judges deliberate as they were told, so I am not surprised that Ilievski was officially detained. Our judges either don’t know the Law or are so scared about their jobs or, on the other hand, are corrupt to the bone. I don’t get it, why doesn’t the Judicial Council react. Also, it is strange that no judge seems to want to comment the case in public"36.
In spite of the exhaustive coverage, a number of aspects related to this case have not been explained:
• Was Duško Ilievski beaten up in the police station, following his arrest. The media just carried his statement: “They beat me up all night, they hit me with chairs and asked me to sign a confession that I planted the marijuana. When I was moved to detention, nobody asked if I was beaten. The doctor there asked me if I was alcoholic, if I had psychological problems or if I used drugs. Only on the third day, when I was visited by the Ombudsman, I was asked about the bruise on may arm, and I told them that I was beaten by police inspectors. How could I know that I should have reported it immediately".37Several days later, the media carried the official statement by the Ministry of Interior: “The accusations by the dairy-farmer Duško Ilievski that he was subjected to torture and other inhuman treatment by the members of the Bitola police department are unfounded. He will be fined if he doesn’t apologize for the presented untruths”.38 Some media attempted to discredit Ilievski's claims: “The farmer Duško Ilievski lied that he was beaten up by the police. He was made to lie by the sister of SDSM’s Vesna Bendevska. So, following the style of the social democratic union, the farmer Dusko Ilievski lied that he was beaten up by the police” 39.
• Was Duško Ilievski previosly subject of misdemeanour or criminal charges. Some media (MTV1, Sitel TV, "Večer", "Nova Makedonija") reported that Ilievski had previous record: Sources in the Ministry of Interior opened Ilievski’s record, which shows that he was charged with grand theft seven times between 1993 and 1997, and was sentenced on charges of domestic violence in 2005, when his party was in power"40, i.e.: “According to information available to “Večer", this is not the first time for Ilievski to collide with the Law. Between 1993 and 1997, Ilievski was suspect in seven grand theft cases. Against the farmer defended by the social-democrats there is a court sentence for domestic violence. In 2005, the Municipal Court in Bitola sentenced Ilievski to suspended sentence of one year in prison, and he would have
33 Telma TV, July 19, 2010 34 Telma TV, July 19, 2010 35 Telma TV, July 19, 2010 36 Vreme, July 23, 2010 37 Utrinski vesnik, July 28, 2010 38 Kanal 5 TV, July 29, 2010 39 Sitel TV, July 29, 2010 40 Nova Makedonija, July 21, 2010
10
gone to serve the sentence if he repeated the offense within a period of three months". Since the Ministry of Interior didn’t confirm or deny that information, and the other media didn’t publish any information about any such previous record, it remains unclear if such a file truly exists and, if it does, what misdemeanour and criminal charges Duško Ilievski faced before?
3. THE WORK OF THE STATE COMMISSION FOR PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION During the period covered by this report, on the issues related to the fight against corruption, the media were mostly interested in: the firing (the resignation) of the former Director of the Office for Prevention of Money Laundering and Financing of Terrorist Activities Vane Cvetanov and the profile of his replacement Vladimir Atanasov; the initiative for changes in the Law on Prevention of Corruption to provide for professionalization and shortened term in office for the members of the State Commission for Prevention of Corruption (SCPC); the challenges in the implementation of the Law on Prevention of Conflicts of Interest, i.e. the call of VMRO-DPMNE to the party members to keep just one office.
The general impression is that all media included in the monitoring programme ensured exhaustive coverage of events and developments, and most of them presented quality analysis of the developments, corresponding to the ability to get the necessary information. The media raised many questions, offered analyses and comments, consulted experts and NGO representatives, carried statements by the president and members (both sitting and former) of SCPC, and reported the positions of the Government and the opposition. On the other hand, the coverage of some issues lacked sufficient investigative journalism approach, as well as in-depth and comparative analysis.
Although the media attempted to find out which came first in the case of Vane Cvetanov - his resignation or the Government's decision to fire him, the motives and the background of that decision, the public was denied clear and complete answers to those questions. The media presented parts of Cvetanov's letter of resignation to the Prime Minister, which states: “I resign over your hypocritical policies and the lack of real interest to fight the true crime” 41, and only hours later reported that the Government, after SCPC kept silent on its request to fire Cvetanov over the defects reported by the State Auditing Office related to public procurement and employement practices in the Commission, decided to remove Cvetanov from office, in accordance to the recommendations from SCPC. The Government used the media to send a message to the public: “The Government ensures all citizens, regardless of their political affiliation, ethnic or other background, that it will staunchly implement the laws and regulations and will continue the uncompromising fight against violations of the Law, crime and corruption”.42 Some media attempted to analyze and comment on the actual sequence of events: “We learn that the Cvetanov’s removal from office was discussed in the last session of the Executive Committe of the VMRO-DPMNE, when decision was made to revoke a number of positions filled by the party’s cadre in the municipalities, as the introduction into a more comprehensive reshuffle of the third echelon of power. Party sources say that the news of the discussion reached Cvetanov, so the question is if he hurried to resign himself to deny the party leadership to fire him. It is also possible that his resignation was a matter of time, having in mind that his relations with the Prime Minister were rather cold for some period of time"43.
The media asked the Prime Minister to comment on Cvetanov’s accusations that Government's anti-corruption policies were hypocritical, and the PM answered: “Unfortunately, Vane Cvetanov chose to react through attacks and insults, to spit his bile around to express his anger and revolt over being removed from office. Everything he says is totally untrue” 44. The
41 Nova Makedonija, July 21, 2010 42 Utrinski vesnik, July 21, 2010 43 Utrinski vesnik, July 21, 2010 44 Utrinski vesnik, July 23, 2010
11 media presented the statements by the opposition that Cvetanov's case was another proof that VMRO-DPMNE's Government is involved in serious corruption: “... the negative audit reports, criminal public procurements, fixed tender competitions for exorbitant commissions, the fact that prominent party officials got rich overnight, all those are the trade-mark of the Government, so we have people that were hand-picked by Gruevski himself now talk about the crime"45.
The media also commented on the profile and the past experience of Cvetanov’s replacement: “Atanasovski, we learn, was one of the 29 people whose employment was disputed by the auditors and the Anti-corruption commission. For that reason, the employees of the Office were surprised by the Government’s decision to appoint Atanasovski as acting director. According to the Office employees, the job at the institution for prevention of money laundering and financing of terrorist activities in 2008 was the first employment for the 26-year old Atanasovski, who comes from Delčevo, after he graduated from the Faculty of Economy in Skopje. He was promoted to the Office of the Director from the position of advisor at the Department of International Cooperation. As member of the ruling VMRO-DPMNE, he was one of the contracted employees through an employment agency, and their contracts with the public administration are extended every three or six months"46.
The experts commented that it was unserious for institutions to fail to act on findings presented by other institutions of the system, which is the main reason why such situations remain unresolved. The media carried the statement by Slagjana Taseva from Transparency Zero Corruption: “We didn’t hear what was the Public Prosecutor’s position on whether Vane Cvetanov abused his office or not. We should not allow, provided that it was true that the Office for prevention of money-laundering prepared analyses and submitted them to the Ministry of Interior, and then they were neglected or hidden, for such abuses of office. Again we haven't heard an official position from a competent body, such as the Public Prosecutor"47.
The second “anti-corruption” topic that dominated the coverage during this period, was the initiative to change the Law on Prevention of Corruption to provide for professionalization of the members of the State Commission for Prevention of Corruption and shortening of their terms in office from five to four years. In that context, attention was paid to the developments related to the cuts in SCPC Budget, as a result of the reshuffle of the 2010 State Budget.
Regarding the proposed professionalization of Commission members, the media presented the views of the Government, the SCPC President, and some experts. Without a comparative analysis of the solutions for that matter applied in the countries of the region of EU member- states, the citizens were able to choose their position on basis of presented statements by relevant actors, which led to the conclusion that the professionalization in itself needs not be problematic and was, in fact, seen as a positive move. Ilmi Selami, SCPC President, said: "Both the European Commission and the past experience show that we need to introduce a professional status and engagement of the members of the State Commission for Prevention of Corruption and the future implementation of the Law that provides for professional engagement of the members of the Commission will show if the move was good or not. I hope it will prove to be good”.48 Justice minister Mihajlo Manevski noted that “the professionalization of the office will mean full dedication of SCPC members in the fight against corruption, as well as certain level of specialisation within the Commission itself” 49.
A number of experts believe that professionalization on its own is not as important as it is to properly define the role of the Commission: “This is an extremely important institution that secures democracy and rule of law in the country. There are different views on whether to make
45 Utrinski vesnik, July 21, 2010 46 Utrinski vesnik, July 22, 2010 47 Alfa TV, July 1, 2010 48 Telma TV, July 16, 2010 49 Nova Makedonija, July 20, 2010
12 the engagement of its members professional, but the actual role of the Commission is much more important” 50 (Slagjana Taseva, Transparency Zero Corruption). The media presented a number of ideas proposed by experts how to set up the Commission: “Changes are needed in the selection of members to guarantee the Commission’s independence. I propose to select four members by the Parliament, after a public competition, which is the existentt practice, and three members to be nominated by the media, the business sector and the NGOs, respectively. That will create a balance and will prevent political meddling"51 (Vanja Mihajlova, former member of the SCPC). Some experts strongly oppose the idea: “’The competences of the Anti-Corruption Commission, which can only propose initiatives and has no authority to prosecute itself, itself points out at a volunteer profile. The engagement of professionals would mean that we need to finance a large, expensive unproductive body’, Dragan Malinovski, former member of the SCPC says, wondering what the seven professional will do for eight hours per day” 52.
The whole atmosphere and the debate in the media took another turn after the proposed changes in the Law on Prevention of Corruption showed that the Government has packed the professionalization together with the shortening of the term in office for the members of SCPC from five to four years, and plans to ensure that the Law will apply retroactively, to shorten the term of the current Commission for one year. It culminated when those developments coincided with the decision to cut the Commission’s budget. In that context, the President of SCPC said: “We have no other option but to take this unreasonable move by the Ministry as a part of a plan to create a domino-effect. The shortening of the term raises suspicions that the Commission will be staffed with party cadres. That will prevent a true control of public and financial operations of elected and appointed officials”, Selami said, adding that this was not a contribution to true democratic development in the country and points out at the lack of political will to fight the corruption”.53
In a heated media debate, the justice minister said: “This proposal is no invasion of any kind, nor does it aim toward employment of party cadres in the State Commission for Prevention of Corruption. The professional status of its members will strengthen the Commission since they will be fully dedicated to their job"54.
According to experts, the simultaneous effort to shorten the Commission members' term in office and cut its budget sends a clear message that the Government wants to meddle with its work: “Many elements coincide. Under the guise of professionalization, another goal appears: change the current composition of the Commission. Why didn’t we hear of any such idea when the Commission was nowhere to be heard of in public. Bowed head will escape the sword! Now that the head is raised a bid, the swords have been pulled out” 55 (Dragan Malinovski, former member of the SCPC). Only a couple of media reacted to the idea for retroactive implementation of the new Law, mostly through presentation of expert opinions: "The new four- year term in office can’t cover the current Commission”, says Ana Pavlovska-Daneva, professor at the Faculty of Law. In her view, the Government aims to install its own people in the Anti- Corruption Commission"56.
Some media commented on the fact that the Government insisted that the changes in the Law were introduced on request by the European Commission: “The changes in the Law on Prevention of Corruption are introduced on insistence of the European Commission. It demanded that the members of the Commission turn professional, not part-time employees as today. However, nobody expected from the Government to propose an early changes in its
50 Utrinski vesnik, July 20, 2010 51 Utrinski vesnik, August 27, 2010 52 Utrinski vesnik, August 30, 2010 53 Utrinski vesnik, August 27, 2010 54 Utrinski vesnik, August 27, 2010 55 Nova Makedonija, August 27, 2010 56 Utrinski vesnik, August 30, 2010
13 composition, one year before the end of their terms in office"57. Some media tried to convince the public in the opposite: “Minister Manevski does what his job is, that is, to propose legislation. In this case, a new law that would shorten the term in office for the members of the State Commission for Prevention of Corruption from five to four years. It is normal for the members of the SCPC to protest – who want to be in power less than originally planned” 58. The same sources of information downplay the significant cuts of the SCPC budget: “In spite of the reshuffle of the 2010 Budget, the SCPC got 40% more funds than in 2006. Over the past four years, its budget grew 65%. It fully demonstrates the Government’s dedication to the fight against corruption. The Ministry adds that the last reshuffle has secured the funds for salaries for the whole of 2010, and that it was open for dialogue to find solution for any eventual situation” 59.
The third issue that agitated the media was the implementation of the Law on Prevention of Conflicts of Interest, in the part that proposes that elected and appointed officials to be able to hold just one office at a time. The media focused on the ultimatum the ruling VMRO-DPMNE presented to its party officials that hold more than one elected or appointed office, to decide which office they will keep by August 31, 2010. The media carried the statements by the officials from VMRO-DPMNE and the party leadership, who expressed their willingness to heed to the party orders, as well as the reactions of the opposition and the expert community. Some media noted that, in spite of the legal obligations under the Law on Prevention of Conflict of Interests, the warnings from SCPC and the general public, the officials of the ruling party understood only the "law" of the party: “So far, we had the directors of the Public Enterprise for Commercial and Residential Properties, MEPSO and Skopje City Hospital playing deaf at the public warnings that they faced conflict of interest situations".60 “Bowing to the ultimatum of their own party, regardless of the fact that, for some time, they received warnings by the anti-corruption commission and the public that they were involved in conflicts of interest, Vladimir Zdravev, Vladimir Bahčovanovski and Viktor Kamilovski only now “understood” the word of the law and will give up their seats in the City Council” 61. Some of the officials caught by the ultimatum talked to the media: "I will follow the party's instructions, but I have not yet thought about which office to keep. I believe I am giving my maximum in both and I am contributing to the well being of the public enterprise and the Council, i.e. citizens, but I will surely leave one of them on September 1” 62 (Vladimir Bahčovanovski). The MPs from the ruling majority greeted the “appeal” of the party and said: “This move by VMRO-DPMNE is a contribution and active step towards the strengthening of democratic processes in Macedonia"63 (Zoran Petreski, MP from VMRO-DPMNE), and some mayors from the ranks of the party noted: “I don’t think it’s so bad, but sooner or later - I have friends in Montenegro who complain they couldn't find enough people for the government, to be appointed as directors, councillors, MPs, deputy minister and state secretaries, it is a small country” 64 (Vladimir Taleski, the Mayor of Bitola).
The „United for Macedonia“ Party demanded that the officials give up their managerial positions in favour of their seats in municipal councils and to pay back the salaries they collected: “United for Macedonia finds the decisions of municipal council members to leave their seats, which are less lucrative than managerial positions in the public enterprises immoral and not serious. We have to note that those people, lamentably, won the votes of the citizens who entrusted them to represent their interests, and for that reason, we demand that they keep their seats in municipal councils won in elections, and to pay the directors' salaries they collected back to the state Budget. We estimate we are talking about a half a million Euro of tax-payers'
57 Alfa TV, August 26, 2010 58 Sitel TV, August 26, 2010 59 Sitel TV, August 26, 2010 60 Nova Makedonija, July 20, 2010 61 Utrinski vesnik, July 21, 2010 62 Utrinski vesnik, July 21, 2010 63 A1 TV, July 19, 2010 64 A1 TV, July 19, 2010
14 money".65. The Ombudsman Ixhet Mehmeti also came forward with a reaction, carried by some media: “We are all aware who holds what offices and hose capable he or she is to hold those offices, but we are waiting to be told so. “That is not a good practice”..66. The media also carried statements by SCPC President Selami who, obviously irritated by the fact that the officials who gave up on one of their offices didn’t inform the Commission about their final choice, which they are legally obligated to do, commented: “Absolutely not! So, just imagine us, the competent institution, having to collect the information who acted in accordance with the law that we have to oversee, in terms of its implementation, from the media".67.
4. EU STABILISATION AND ASSOCIATION COUNCIL The media followed the events and developments surrounding the session of the EU Stabilisation and Association Council. A number of media announced that the session will be postponed for a week, while the majority reported on the Council on the eve of the Council session, during and after it was concluded.
The opinions and analyses presented in the majority of the media noted that the European Commission has number of objections regarding implementation and the tempo of reforms in Macedonia, which they saw as lagging behind: “... The Government will be warned that it has to continue with reforms, that it has to stop with efforts to put the administration under party domination, to relieve the judiciary from political pressure and influence, to ensure the freedom of the media, to create the legislation for free and fair elections, to spend the Budget wisely, and to revive the political dialogue, which has entered crisis"68.
There were notable reports and the tendency in some media that the responsibility for the criticism and objections in the November report will have to be shared equally by both the Government and the opposition: “All political parties represented in the Parliament would share the responsibility for a negative report from Brussels. The President of the Parliament Trajko Veljanoski doesn’t escape his share of responsibility, and noted that the parties should take up Macedonia’s Euro-Atlantic prospects with utmost seriousness” 69. The coverage in some media leaves an impression that the reporters base they articles mostly, or exclusively, on the statements of the Government and the ruling majority: “... a single sentence explains a lot, the statement by the Stabilisation and Association Council, the statement by European commissioner Füle, that the responsibility for the political dialogue doesn’t lie only with the ruling majority, but with the opposition, too. We hope this message will be understood, properly interpreted and that personal, narrow party interests and the motivation to cause problems, tensions and smaller incidents will not be at the levels we saw some weeks ago” 70 (Antonio Milošoski, Minister of Foreign Affairs). Opposition’s comments in that context were also carried: “SDSM accepts its share of responsibility for the status of political dialogue. Nonetheless, all relevant factors know all too well who didn't follow their recommendations, who adopted the Rules and Regulations without consensus, who doesn't want the Parliament to create proper instrument to control the spending of public money"71 (Andrej Petrov, SDSM).
The media reported the views of the government and the oppositions, who agreed on the position that the coming November report will not threaten EC's decision to start negotiations with Macedonia. Andrej Žernovski, MP for LDP, noted: “Whatever happens, the recommendation for negotiations stays. There is no mechanism that could revoke it” 72, at the same time concluding that it didn’t mean that reforms in Macedonia progressed: “Knowing that
65 Kanal 5 TV, July 25, 2010 66 Alfa TV, July 15, 2010 67 Sitel TV, August 31, 2010 68 Utrinski vesnik, July 27, 2010 69 Sitel TV, July 27, 2010 70 Sitel TV, July 27, 2010 71 Nova Makedonija, July 29, 2010 72 Nova Makedonija, July 29, 2010
15 last year’s recommendation has not moved into the next phase, definition of a start of negotiations date, it means that there was no progress or that we have moved backwards” 73.
The media carried the statements by PM Gruevski, who said after the session of the Stabilisation and Association Council: “Macedonia got many positive grades and several less positive opinions from Brussels, but positive comments and grades for the achievements are more numerous. We are encourage by what we see as evaluation of our efforts and efforts of all those involved in past reforms and modernisation – Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski said” 74. After the Council’s session, Commissioner Füle said: “I have to say this was a positive meeting, in the sense that we were convinced there was no delay of reforms, which have gained a new momentum. It is now of great importance to continue working with the same intensity on these six points. I want to emphasize another point here. Republic of Macedonia’s status as candidate was not built up to be put in a waiting room that has no exit, therefore, we praise and evaluate the efforts by Skopje and Athens to find a solution for the name-dispute as soon as possible."75. Belgian foreign minister Steven Vanackere answered a reporter’s question on how he intended to ensure consensus in the Council of EU on the issue of giving Macedonia a start of negotiations date: “We sill stay loyal to the logic of Belgian presidency: without long waits, without manz promises, but with significant results. I won't say what we intend to do in a press- conference, but we will try to make fewer statements with belief that we will achieve a result"76.
Some media also covered the session of the EU Council of Ministers of Foreign Ministers, held on July 26, 2010 in Brussels, and reported:“The start of negotiation date for Macedonia didn't make it on the agenda of yesterday's meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers"77. Asked how he felt now, after the July session of the Council of Ministers gave Iceland the green light to start the negotiations, Minister Milošoski said:“As far as negotiations with Iceland are concerned, I still feel Macedonian and not and Icelander. Iceland has the good luck of having better neighbours than Macedonia. We expressed our preparedness and will to have the same decision for Macedonia soon, i.e. to start negotiations, achieving a "balance" between north and the south in the enlargement process"78.
5. FIRING OF JOURNALISTS BY KANAL 5 TV The firing of several journalists and members of technical staff by Kanal 5 TV and the public accusations by some of the fired journalists that the broadcaster’s management “acts on instructions from the Office of the Prime Minister"79, was reported by the media, albeit to different degrees of intensity. While some media (“Dnevnik”, “Špic”, “Utrinski vesnik”, “Vreme”, A1 TV) reported the case intensively and exhaustively, the other media covered by this monitoring (“Večer“, Sitel TV, “Nova Makedonija”, “Vest”, Kanal 5 TV, MTV1, Telma TV, Alfa TV, “Koha”, Alsat M TV) expressed little or no interest in the matter of fired journalists and their allegations of political pressure in Macedonian journalism. The media covered several aspects of the case: The open letter of Vesna Kovačevska - Trpčevska, one of the journalists that were fired, to the PM Gruevski and the owner of Kanal 5 TV, Emil Stojmenov; the open letter that Dejan Gacov, former spokesman of the Healthcare Fund; the denials issued by Gruevski, his Chief of Cabinet Martin Protogjer, and Kanal 5 TV management; the reactions and the concerns about the situation with the media in Macedonia expressed by the international community; the functioning of the Association of Journalists of Macedonia and the need for union organisation for the journalists, together with announcements for a mass protest by the journalists - the journalists uprising; the general situation in the media and media profession in Macedonia; the wars of words waged between some media.
73 Nova Makedonija, July 29, 2010 74 Nova Makedonija, July 29, 2010 75 Alsat M TV, July 27, 2010 76 Alsat M TV, July 27, 2010 77 Vreme, July 27, 2010 78 Alsat M TV, July 27, 2010 79 Dnevnik, July 29, 2010
16
Most media published Kovačevska-Trpčevska's open letter in which she "points out that journalists are victims of political and business interests". Kovačevska demanded from the Prime Minister to stop threatening the members of the press: “Stop with the invasions in professional journalism. You could threat the criminals, and you probably use their crimes to ensure their loyalty, but you can't threaten us that do an honest job. You are striking a blow against free thinking and you threaten the very existence of people"80, and from Stojmenov she demanded "to take a stand to the attempt to lynch his employees"81. Several days later, Gacov, too, came forward with an open letter in which he said: “... the journalists and media houses are divided by the Government into ‘friends of the Government’ and those who are not. The main instrument to secure such 'friendly disposition' is money"82. The media also reported on the denials issued by Gruevski, his Chief of Cabinet Martin Protogjer, and Kanal 5 TV management. The Government denied that the Prime Minister or another Government official had anything to do with the firings: “We adamantly dismiss as unfounded all accusations of our alleged meddling in editorial policies or any other aspect of functioning of that broadcaster” 83. Protogjer responded: “The accusations that I meddled in the TV station’s editorial policies are absolutely false” 84, while Kanal 5 management held the position that “serious accusations were presented against the company in the media, without any proof or evidence" and that "contrary to what was reported in the media, nobody at Kanal 5 was mistreated or humiliated in any way or fashion"85. Several of the fired journalists met with OSCE and the U.S. Embassy in Skopje. According to media reports, the advisor to U.S. Ambassador Reeker “was interested to learn about the alleged violations of the laws in the case of the fired journalists, especially regarding the provisions of the Law on Labour Relations, but also what protection the journalists have from the influence of media owners and politicians"86 and "offered moral and financial assistance to the fired journalists who announced intention to sue the media in which they worked only yesterday” 87. The media reported that Kovačevska’s letter reached EU Ambassador Fouere, who forwarded them to EU Enlargement Commissioner Stefan Füle. In an interview for A1 TV88, Fouere noted that “the Commission warned, on several occasions, about significant political meddling. The recent trend to name the media market and the journalists as „enemies of the state “doesn’t help and creates negatively charged atmosphere in the divided society. It is important to have greater understanding for the media and greater respect for their independence. That is what the citizens expect from the political parties, not domination and control, in which case we have undermining of democracy...". Some media expressed their concerns that the European Commission (EC) will likely conclude that the situation in the media is bad and that there is strong political influence on the media sector. They reminded of the remarks in the 2009 Progress Report for Macedonia. “The Broadcasting Law is not fully implemented, especially in the segment of illegal concentration of ownership and unfair competition. Not only there are violations of the Law, but, and of far greater concern, the government has tolerated the lawlessness for years. Such examples are followed by other media owners, who have acquired both broadcasting and print media. That is dangerous, for it creates, in illegal way, unfair competition on the media market"89. The functioning of the Association of Journalists of Macedonia (AJM), the need for journalists’ trade union and the announcements of a great protest by the journalists – the
80 Dnevnik, July 29, 2010 81 Špic, July 29, 2010 82 Utrinski vesnik, July 6, 2010 83 Nova Makedonija, July 29, 2010 84 A1 TV, July 30, 2010 85 Kanal 5 TV, July 30, 2010 86 Utrinski vesnik, July 30, 2010 87 Špic, July 30, 2010 88 А1 TV, July 29, 2010 89 Dnevnik, August 16, 2010
17 journalists’ uprising, imposed themselves as important issues. The media carried AJM’s reaction to the firing of journalists by Kanal 5 TV: "... the latest developments in the media sector brought up, yet again, the bitter problems faced by the members of the press in the country, violations of their freedom and social rights by media owners who do that at will..."90, some of them did conclude the reaction was not nearly enough: “Those who are responsible to protect the profession didn’t give their support, unlike the journalists associations all over the world, and even in the neighbouring countries. Many saw the reaction as too mild and not fitting the event” 91, i.e. that “...here in Macedonia, we have a frigid journalists' association, which defends the journalists with prolix public statements, rarely on its own initiative but after a request was made for them to react..."92. While AJM President Robert Popovski claimed that the Association was not in crisis, that it is being reformed and that “the journalists will get the protection they dare seek, to the extent of AJM's capacity..."93, some editors and journalists, for example the editor- in-chief of „Vest“ Goran Mihajlovski believes that "the current leadership of AJM lacks legitimacy"94. According to journalist Dragan Antonovski: “This is a consequence of lack of organisation on the behalf fo the journalists, lack of proper association, lack of any trade union work", while Sašo Kokalanov, editor-in-chief of "Dnevnik": "All journalists have to be aware that the same could happen to them tomorrow. If we keep silent today and don't stand for our colleagues, there will be nobody to defend us when it comes at our door".95 The debate on the need for “overhaul” of AJM escalated after the journalists and TV cameramen from Ohrid collectively left the Association. Simon Ilievski resigned from the position of president of the AJM’s regional office in Ohrid: “I hereby submit my irrevocable resignation from my membership in AJM and I revoke the support to the group that works to transform the association, since we all failed to ensure that we will be able to make an honest living"96. The media carried the announcements for the mass journalists’ uprising. According to the initiators, "the increasingly obvious attempts by the Government to invade free journalism, the lack of trade union organization in the media, while AJM has been passive for a prolonged period of time, are sufficient reasons for a protest" and that "the battle will be fought to restore the dignity, professional standards, reform of the Association, but also restoration of the social rights through creation of trade union which is absolutely necessary, having in mind the situation in the field of public information"97. The media that reported extensively on the firing of the journalists from Kanal 5 TV, concluded that "freedom of expression in Macedonia enters serious crisis, and open season has been declared on Macedonian journalists"98. Some media even compared the Government's with Goebels' propaganda: “Add here the remarks of EU’s representatives and the diplomatic corps that the democracy in the country is moving backwards, and the opinion shared by a number of experts in the field of political communications that the Government applies propaganda methods typical of Nazi regimes, the impression is that those who see the Goebelsian method in the actions of VMRO-DPMNE are hardly wrong, to say the least"99. Journalists and editors said in their commentaries and columns:“This is another opportunity for the journalistic community to stop the decades long vacation it took. To stand up and raise its voice, to shout from the top of the lungs before other journalists are kicked to the street because of their adherence to professional principles. If the journalists and their editors continue to stand as voyeurs, each of them individually will appear as co-author of the totalitarian story of journalism in Macedonia"100, i.e.:“We have to bear one thing in mind: There is no such a
90 Koha, July 31, 2010 91 Utrinski vesnik, August 6, 2010 92 Vreme, July 31, 2010 93 Utrinski vesnik, August 6, 2010 94 Utrinski vesnik, August 6, 2010 95 А1 TV, July 29, 2010 96 Nova Makedonija, August 5, 2010 97 Vreme, August 18, 2010 98 Utrinski vesnik, July 29, 2010 99 Špic, August 3, 2010 100 Dnevnik, August 3, 2010
18
Government that wouldn't want to have full control over the media. The question is, how much are the media prepare to defend themselves against such attempts! They shouldn’t keep silent for years and then speak up when they, too, are fired. If they manage to build a professional status, which is the greatest guarantee for strong immunity to all sorts of pressure, the journalists will always have the arguments to resist, clearly and in public, any attempts to "discipline their backbone"101. Several opposition figures addressed the situation in Macedonian media in their coumns and op-ed articles: Gordan Georgiev concluded that:“... the current fight of the journalists for freedom of the press is like swordfight with knitting needles. They will prick a little but wont stick it deep enough. This society and its citizens have been waiting impatiently for the journalists to take the sword and stab the enemy of open society in the heart. Rest assured that nobody will help them. To the contrary, many hardly wait to make it more difficult for them...”102, while Dane Taleski noted: “... in this Macedonia, democracy is threatened by bad and irresponsible government. The government is manipulating the information with impunity. To be fair, any government is trying to manipulate the information, that is a benign form of influence on the media, but here it gets worrying magnitudes...”103. Nenad Novkovski, too, addressed the firing of Kanal 5 TV journalists in his weekly column: “The question is why the recently fired journalists didn’t react earlier to the irregularities they report now... We could assume they were working under pressure, but then we have another question - what kinds of pressure on the press there are and to what extent the change the normal functioning of the media. To get the whole picture, we need to take into account the fact that our media were under strong pressure from the very beginning of the social transition in the country...”104 Although the Kanal 5 case was mostly approached from the point of view of general situation in Macedonian media, the political pressure on the journalists and ways to preserve journalistic ethics and professional standards, there were evident expressions of animosity between certain media companies. This time, the animosity was most visible between Kanal 5 and A1 TV. At the moment when Velija Ramkovski announced that he intended to hire some of the fired reporters, Kanal 5 answered with a sarcastic open letter to A1, commenting on that decision: "We are happy that there is such a good soul with chivalric values as Velija Ramkovski in Macedonia, to employ the journalists fired by Kanal 5 TV. Bravo to Ramkovski!...”. The letter also mentions A1’s project for organ transplants, asking Ramkovski: "how much will you profit from that project and does it include your reporter Borjan Jovanovski with the organ transplant company that features the cousin of your editor-in-chief?"105 Jovanovski responded to this open attack that "Kanal 5, with its elementary ignorance and manipulations, demonstrates the lack of professionalism and responsibility" adding that it was no company at all, but the national foundation for transplantation of organs: "I am proud to sit on the board of a foundation that works to introduce new standards in this field, for the benefit of the patients...”106.
6. THE CONTROVERSIAL STATEMENTS BY MACEDONIAN AMBASSADOR TO NATO MARTIN TRENEVSKI The controversial positions of the newly-appointed Ambassador of Macedonian to NATO, Martin Trenevski, on the Alliance and NATO integration processes in the country, attracted a lot of interest by the press. They carefully followed the developments and reactions to Trenevski’s positions both in Macedonia, and in the international community. The intensity of the coverage did vary from one media to the next. "Utrinski vesnik”, Alfa TV, Kanal 5 TV, “Špic”, “Vreme”, A1 TV, Alsat TV, Telma TV, MTV1 and “Dnevnik” were most interested in this topic, while “Večer“, Sitel TV and "Vest” expressed little interest in the matter.
101 Dnevnik, August 7, 2010 102 Utrinski vesnik, August 13, 2010 103 Vreme, August 6, 2010 104 Vreme, August 10, 2010 105 Špic, August 7, 2010 106 Špic, August 7, 2020
19
Presenting the platform of his diplomatic mission to NATO to the Parliamentary Foreign Policy Committee, Ambassador Trenevski noted that “the conclusions from the NATO Summit in Bucharest, related to Macedonia and based on principles of consensus and solidarity, are absurd and unsustainable” announcing that he would "...insist on corrections of the conclusions of the Bucharest Summit and to ensure correct treatment of Macedonia as a candidate- country”107. The media reported that Trenevski said that "...the acceptance of Greek demands by Macedonia would definitely mean capitulation to aggression..." and that "he was “convinced that NATO's reputation is seriously damaged by the fact that Macedonia was not accepted for membership two years ago..."108 Those statements, as well as Trenevski’s doubts about the future of the Alliance and his comments that NATO suffers serious losses in Afghanistan, caused an uproar in the public. The opposition found Trenevski’s vision to be aggressive and confrontational, reflecting of the internal policies of the Government, prompting Igor Ivanovski from SDSM to say: “In spite of your wish to redefine NATO’s essence and contents, you can’t use diplomatically unacceptable language, that Macedonia was subject to aggression by NATO member-state” 109 adding “...I don’t understand how could you stand on the position that Macedonia should work to correct the conclusions of the NATO Summit... that is a done deal... What may happen at the next summit, that is another matter altogether"110. Pavle Trajanov from the Democratic Union demanded a national consensus on the name-dispute: “I believe that we shouldn’t be too optimistic that the open issues that RM faces, especially the dispute over our name imposed by Greece, could be overcome with a new consensus or new positions by influential NATO member-states” 111. Former Macedonian ambassador to NATO Nano Ružin wasn’t surprised by Trenevski’s view, since he saw Trenevski as exponent of Government’s policies: “...this is obviously position of the Government, not Trenevski’s personal view...”112. Ružin also told his colleague "... to learn a lot before he goes to the mission, having in mind that discussion of some topics needs thorough preparations"113. Filip Petrovski, the first General Consul of Macedonia in New York, on the other hand, said:“The country has been engaged in open conflict with the European Union, mostly over the back of European ambassador Fouere, but now we are going to war with NATO. The way things are, we will never join EU and NATO, not to mention 2020” 114. VMRO—PMNE, on the other hand, agreed with Trenevski’s positions, the Foreign Ministry wished him success of his diplomatic mission, President Ivanov signed the decree for his ambassadorship, and even the German MEP Bernt Poselt defended Trenevski, saying that he was an excellent choice for the mission to NATO and a "pioneer of European integrations in Macedonia” 115. PM Gruevski tried to offer additional explanation for Trenevski's positions:“We might have a misunderstanding, possibly he didn’t use the appropriate vocabulary... In any case, NATO membership is a strategic goal for the Government, we are already allies and we have no differences with Trenevski on that matter”.116 Not satisfied with that statement, the Social-Democrats demanded from the Prime Minister to explain how could it happen to send a man with such positions on NATO to be ambassador to the Alliance, asking if it was "...a signal that Gruevski's anti-NATO and anti-EU policies were gaining strength and official status“ 117. The „New Democracy“ Party demanded from the Government to distance itself from anti-NATO and anti-EU positions and to apologize to the friends in the international community, and Sulejman Rushiti said:“Any serious state would revoke the ambassadors opposed to the integration agenda. Lamentably, the state here
107 Dnevnik, July 30, 2010 108 Špic, July 30, 2010 109 Kanal 5 TV, July 29, 2010 110 Dnevnik, July 29, 2010 111 Dnevnik, July 30, 2010 112 Alfa TV, August 21, 2010 113 Telma TV, August 20, 2010 114 Špic, July 31, 2010 115 Alfa TV, July 26, 2010 116 Utrinski vesnik, August 3, 2010 117 Utrinski vesnik, August 3, 2010
20 supports them, which makes it clear that the Government is on the path of isolation for the Republic of Macedonia. The isolation that the citizens of Macedonia don’t want in any case”118. Trenevski’s platform didn’t surprise just the Macedonian public. The U.S. Department of State, after it read Trenevski’s platform, demanded official explanation for his positions, through the U.S. Embassy:“The State Department in Washington was surprised by Mr. Trenevski’s platform, presented to the Parliamentary Foreign Policy Committee, and which seems in opposition to the past statements by the President and the Prime Minister promoting the strategic goal for Macedonia to join NATO..."119. Although the letter of the State Department was seen by the political and expert publics as a “wake-up slap by Washington”, Trenevski, in an interview for Makfax news agency, not only refused to change his positions, but said that “they are fully in line with the strategic directions of the Government and priorities of the foreign policy which is focused on the integration into NATO as a top priority"120. A number of journalists and editors in their reports and comments noted that Trenevski's views were "a firecracker thrown into NATO’s arsenal” 121; some commented that “we don't need EU or NATO, we have the Katlanovsko Blato (bog) 122", and that PM Gruevski is "advancing his intent to isolate Macedonia with every passing day, in every sense of the word”.123 Some believe that “Trenevski hinted, with Government’s blessing, that he will take Macedonian into the difficult situation of being the laughing stock for everybody else, knowing that all his moves start from a distorted position"124; while some believe that the anti-NATO and anti-European policies of the Government are increasingly evident, “surfacing like a drowning man, to threaten the most important strategic priorities of the country"125. Trenevski was treated in a number of columns published in the daily newspapers. For Stojan Slavevski, Trenevski’s statements that we, a candidate country, will be able to change the Allinance’s policies are an illusion. He says that Macedonia has adopted all strategic documents that define the national security policies, but that he couldn’t understand why the National Security Strategy was classified as confidential and has not been presented to the public:“that is opposed to the Alliance's principle of transparency of security policies"126. Ivon Veličkovski is convinced that “after all it has done so far, the last thing this Government wants is to see Macedonia in NATO"127, while Aleksandar Dastevski128 believes that Macedonia needs the NATO membership and doesn't need any unnecessary adventures.
7. THE WORK OF THE COMMISSION FOR LUSTRATION During the period covered by this monitoring, the attention of the media was attracted by the press-conference held by the Commission for Verification of Facts to present the report for the first half of the year. The Chairman Janakie Vitanovski reported that the Commission has not discovered former collaborators of the secret services among the holders of public offices, that it "worked on about a dozen of 'suspect' files on elected officials... including seven or eight members of the current Parliament” 129 and noted that the Law on Lustration creates problems for the work of the Commission. He therefore asked for changes in the Law that would allow the Commission access to the documents that it now gets from the institutions that are charged to cooperate with it. Vitanovski also complained the Government has “little understanding for their work”, that the Commission faces “obstruction, both financial and technical in nature”, and that the Budget reshuffle cut 21% of its funding.
118 Telma TV, July 31, 2010 119 Alfa TV, August 20, 2010 120 Utrinski vesnik, August 23, 2010 121 Utrinski vesnik, August 25, 2010 122 Vreme, August 30, 2010 123 Vreme, August 3, 2010 124 Dnevnik, July 31, 2010 125 Utrinski vesnik, August 6, 2010 126 Dnevnik, August 12, 2010 127 Špic, August 3, 2010 128 Vreme, August 31, 2010 129 Dnevnik, August 5, 2010
21
The media carried Vitanovski’s statements, but the greatest attention was paid to the statement that the Ministry of Interior invaded the process of lustration and the competences of the Commission when it issued the journalist Dragan Pavlović-Latas an affidavit that he didn't cooperate with foreign secret services in a procedure that took just several hours to complete:“Only the Commission for Verification of Facts could start a procedure and verify the veracity of a submitted statement, and no other body or authority has the right or competence to determine the veracity of a statement, however, we had one such case which, if allowed to continue, could result in non-institutional lustration of the street"130. Following Vitanovski's statement and reports in some media, "Večer” daily announced that Latas intended to sue a number of dailies, their editors, and the Chairman of the Commission for Lustration. Two days after the press-conference, Vitanovski again gathered the press and said that he had “incorrect information” and that "after the reactions in the public, I studied the case more carefully. I concluded that the said person’s statement was not verified as an elected official and that the Ministry of Interior was not the authority that verifies personal statements. He was issued an affidavit that he wasn’t cooperating with foreing intelligence services, which is within MOI’s competences. No invasion took place”131. Vitanovski added that his initial statement was a personal view, that the press was to blame for the confusion, and that he wasn’t pressure to issue his denial:“There is no politics involved and no political considerations regarding this problem” 132. The media found the behaviour of the members of the Commission, who distanced themselves from the first statement Vitanovski made, rather indicative. Tome Adžiev, Vitanovski's successor at the head of the Commission, said "the Commission never discussed the question if MOI invaded its competences when ti issued the affidavit to Latas"133, and asked if the members backed the press-conferences held by the Chairman of the Commission, he said:“We stand behind the part of the report that is expressed in numbers and figures” 134. After the two conflicting statements by Vitanovski, the media concluded that “the President and the Vice-President of the Commission brought into question the dignity of the whole Commission and the lustration process itself"135. The journalists analyzed the behaviour of the lustrators and wrote:“This is the last confusing statement by the obviously scared Chairman of the Commission for Lustration, Janake Vitanovski, who made two totally different statements in just two days, using the journalists as an excuse, saying they twisted his story"136; "While Vitanovski completely capitulated in front of TV cameras, his colleagues in the Commission stood by and listened carefully to his every word... Well, this is not the first time they distance themselves from a statement by some member of the Commission... After all, if everybody danced solo, how could we believe that the Commission works in a synchronized manner..."137; “This is the second time in the brief existence of the Commission that we have its members giving statements only to rebuke them later. The first case was the statement by one member that Belgrade keeps files on Macedonian officials"138; "This is not the first time we have dissonance in the Commission. Gjorgi Malkovski said at the promotion of the Commission last year, among other things, that over 200,000 files were taken to Belgrade. After the uproar in the public, the other members distanced themselves and it was all reduced to ‘personal view’”.139 Writing about the lustration and the work of the Commission, “Koha” daily presented the views of Shpetim Polozhani, the President of the Association of Political Prisoners. He said that the last results just confirm the pessimistic view he had from the very beginning:“This is ironic and low. Such an important body does an amateur and miserable job. This being a non-
130 Dnevnik, August 7, 2010 131 Nova Makedonija, August 7, 2010 132 Telma TV, August 6, 2010 133 Vreme, August 7, 2010 134 MTV1, August 6, 2010 135 Dnevnik, August 7, 2010 136 Špic, August 7, 2010 137 Utrinski vesnik, August 7, 2010 138 Alfa TV, August 6, 2010 139 Dnevnik, August 7, 2010
22 professional commission, therefore an amateur body, its results have to be amateurish”. 140 Alsat M TV141 published the views of former officer of UDBA Nafi Cegrani that "it wasn't possible that there are no collaborators in the ranks of MPs and high state officials” and that “some circles in Macedonia don’t want the files to be opened, having in mind that the spies are still living and hold different offices”. For that reason, Cegrani suggested that “the institutions should request from Belgrade to return all files to Macedonia, which is the only opportunity to close that chapter of history”. In addition to Vitanovski’s contradictory statements, the media covered the Commission's request for changes in teh Law on Lustration, that will allow it control over the documents that it now receives from the institutions charged to cooperate with it, i.e. it will allow it full access to the documents and records held by the UBK (Direction for Security and Counterintelligence) and the National Archive of Macedonia. The journalists contacted the initiators of the process and the authors of the Law: Stojan Andov, Ivica Bocevski and Zvonimir Jankulovski. Andov142 thought the lustrators’ reactions was “rushed”, that “he didn’t believe the solution was to allow the lustrators full disposal of the files" and "if they met resistance or noticed that facts were being hidden from them, Andov encouraged them to come forward openly and report such cases, since penalty for attempts to hide documents is prison terms". Bocevski believed that “Macedonia adopted the Law with a consensus, and the same spirit of consensus was used to establish the Commission and we shouldn't allow for this body to turn into a 'paper tiger'. We need to see what practical problems it faces” 143, while Jankulovski noted that “this concept of soft lustration clearly yields no results. The law has only formal political support. It makes is impossible to implement and discover the people that denounced others... If we want true lustration, we need a new concept of strong lustration, and then we will see if there is political will to complete the process".144 In the context of demanded changes in the Law, the media carried the statement by PM Gruevski that “any idea that falls in the framework of democratic processes that would improve the process is acceptable” 145. Gruevski noted that the lustration has the full support of the Government:“All that was done on the lustration so far was done at Government’s initiative. The lustration was part of VMRO-DPMNE’s election platform in 2006 and it was realized, of course, with some difficulties, but the things are moving forward".146.
8. REPUBLIC DAY All media covered the events related to the celebration of August 2 - the Republic Day. The journalists paid special attention to the speeches of PM Gruevski in Kruševo; the President Gjorgje Ivanov at the ASNOM Memorial Centre "Pelince"; the Speaker of the Parliament Veljanovski at the statue of Čento (Metodija Ivanov – Čento); and the speech of Todor Petrov, the President of the World Macedonian Congress at the traditional meeting of immigrants in Trnovo. Gruevski, calling for party unification, noted that “the Macedonian question has not been closed yet, at least in the heads of certain individuals that have the power to block and blackmail” and warned that “we have to be careful... We don’t want to take anything from the other, no territory, no culture, no history that belongs to somebody else. However, we don’t want to have something taken from us” 147. According to Gruevski, Macedonia will join EU and NATO with dignity and pride, not with downgraded status and hurt feelings: “It means that it is not good for us, for our esteemed neighbours, or for Europe if we joined with low morals, degraded status, hurt fillings or, as some would say, with our back-bone broken. It is only
140 Koha, August 6, 2010 141 Alsat M TV, August 5, 2010 142 Utrinski vesnik, August 5, 2010 143 Dnevnik, August 6, 2010 144 Utrinski vesnik, August 6, 2010 145 Alfa TV, August 5, 2010 146 Alsat M TV, August, 5, 2010 147 Špic, August 3, 2010
23 rational, humane and culturally correct to sit on the same table with our friends as Macedonians"148. President Ivanov also demanded „a stop for politicking divisions"149 and appealed to "NATO to invite us for membership in spite of the name-dispute, and from EU to not allow that we face moral, in addition to the financial bankruptcy. Macedonia will always pay attention to her interests and will not apologise for that... Some politicians in our neighbours to the south have problems with our name and our identity. I want you to know that we are here to help them overcome that problem and accept the reality of Macedonia and Macedonians” 150. Veljanovski said he was saddened by the fact that "although we met all the criteria for NATO membership, although we got the recommendation to start negotiations with the EU last year, we have all these blockades. There is only one reason – the national, cultural and linguistic identity of the Macedonian people” 151 and concluded that “this battle that we wage through negotiations will result in a solution that will not touch on our national identity and will allow full integration into the EU, where Macedonian people and all citizens belong, both in cultural and civilisational terms” 152. Todor Petrov, according to the media, went farthest in his rhetoric, especially in his messages to Greece and the EU:“The Macedonians all over the world demand immediate, unconditional stop of all negotiations on the change of the name of Macedonian state. The Macedonians condemn the Nazi-fascism of Athens and the apartheid the European bureaucracy imposes on Macedonia... If Athens doesn’t recognize Macedonia, Hellas will not remain whole. The bankruptcy it sailed into will swallow the old lady, since the Arian fascist model of one nation of one belief will disappear once and for all” 153. Petrov didn’t spare the domestic public and “told the local, in his word, "vrhovists” (the pro-Bulgarian part of Macedonian liberation movement) and quislings, that grand treason is a criminal offense"154. The media carried the reactions of political parties, mostly critical of the official Republic Day speeches. The opposition, commenting on Prime Minister’s speech, noted that "Gruevski is completely disoriented, doesn't know where Macedonia goes and has no vision about her future"155. Andrej Petrov from SDSM emphasized that the Prime Minister’s “call for national unity was declarative only”, and that "nothing new comes from Gruevski but his 'antiquisation' and partisanship"156. According the LP leader Stojan Andov, Gruevski “creates rifts in the state on all grounds, and turned the national gathering into a party convention” and that “Gruevski’s renaissance intends to reinvent EU and NATO, so they would change the postulates on which they were based” 157. Imer Selmani from New Democracy thought that Prime Minister's speech was "another provocation and a signal that he doesn't want to solve the name-dispute"158. Andrej Žernovski from LDP concluded that Gruevski says the same thing every year, that his calls for unity are mere phrases intended to get the people to like him and that “we don’t have common strategy with the Government on important issues, and the decisions are not made in consultations with the opposition. We are disunited even when politicians go to report to Brussels”159. Tito Petkovski from NSDP noted that Prime Minister’s speech was “full of demagogy, without concrete solutions how to achieve Macedonia's strategic goals"160. For DUI,
148 Večer, August 3, 2010 149 Vest, August 3, 2010 150 А1 TV, August 2, 2010 151 Telma TV, August 2, 2010 152 Vest, August 3, 2010 153 А1 TV, August 2, 2010 154 Sitel TV, August 2, 2010 155 Špic, August 4, 2010 156 Špic, August 4, 2010 157 Špic, August 4, 2010 158 Špic, August 4, 2010 159 Nova Makedonija, August 4, 2010 160 Vreme, August 4, 2010
24 the unity should center of foreign policy issues:“We need to stand together on important issues, like membership in the EU and NATO"161. The media asked a number of prominent intellectuals about their opinion. Ibrahim Mehmeti said that he was stunned by the single-party spirit of the “Ilinden” celebrations in Kruševo, adding that the divisions resulted from the short-sightedness of political elites:“The manifestation of political primitivism, inability to identify the common interest and recognize the lasting values” 162. Rizvan Sulejmani believes there was a “crack in the very concept of statehood” and that the current celebration of Republic Day was “totally opposed to multiethnic and cosmopolitan aspirations of the Manifesto of Kruševo” 163, while professor Jove Kekenovski objected to the fact that “holidays in Macedonia are increasingly put in ethnic brackets and party soldiers booed the delegation of the opposition”.164. The editors and journalists in a number of media evaluated the Republic Day celebrations as a “party, not popular gathering” and that “the way thing go, the Prime Minister and the President will put us all in historical miscellany books. Their messages for “Ilinden” instead of EU and NATO, entrench us where we are” 165; “If Gruevski calls for unity, he shouldn’t allow "his people" to boo the delegation of his competition on a national holiday. If Ahmeti believes that we need unity to get into NATO and EU, he should help heal the wounds of the conflict... If Crvenkovski truly wants national unity, he should check up the meaning of the term construction opposition in a dictionary” 166; “One day, when we solve the problem with Greece, will we finally see the vocabulary of party speeches change and all the ‘ready to use' internal and external enemies disappear. Will the citizens finally get a vision from the politicians in what direction they were moving"167; “Party gathering paid by the state... Is there any other way to interpret the speech Gruevski gave at 'Mečkin kamen’ that looked so much to the speeches of the leaders during communism” 168. Some media were strongly critical of Todor Petrov, noting that his speech in Trnovo was “scandalous, hard-line national, at time nationalist rhetoric in defence of the name, full of curses against our southern neighbour and Europe” 169, while other media concluded that his were the views of the Government and that “it again revealed the intents of the Prime Minister, to have his ‘no’ to Europe told in smaller doses by other people, so that it could last for another two years, until the next elections..."170 Some media reported the fact that EU Ambassador Fouere and American Ambassador Philip Reeker, “once regular guests at the gatherings organized by the Government” 171, were noticeably absent from Mečkin Kamen.
III CONCLUSIONS The analysis of the quality of information shows that majority of the media actively promote public debate on current affairs through presentation of statements of the Government, the opposition, expert community and non-governmental organisations, with notable increase of commentators' approach applied by editors and journalists, especially in the print media. Depending on how complex a given topic is, some media published educational information, which is not a common practice.
161 Nova Makedonija, August 4, 2010 162 Utrinski vesnik, August 4, 2010 163 Utrinski vesnik, August 4, 2010 164 Vreme, August 4, 2010 165 Dnevnik, August 10, 2010 166 Nova Makedonija, August 4, 2010 167 Utrinski vesnik, August 4, 2010 168 Vreme, August 4, 2010 169 А1 TV, August 2, 2010 170 Vreme, August 5, 2010 171 Vreme, August 4, 2010
25
Some media didn’t report all aspects related to the events and topics they covered. A number of media under-report or don’t report at all on some events and developments. The question is, do they choose intentionally to not report certain aspects of the events, or if they consider those aspects to be marginal and of lesser importance. Such a selective approach means that those media outlets don't provide their audience with professional, quality and comprehensive reporting. As a conclusion, the citizens can’t always create an informed view of the events if they don’t follow several media at a time.
The analysis also shows that the media raise many questions, but rarely manage to provide full answers. That creates further confusion in the public. Having in mind that dynamics of events, the media often fail to see the developments through and invest in additional investigation, and there is even less space to impose their own topics and subjects.
The war of words and animosity between some media continue. It deteriorates the overall media environment and pulls the journalists away from the process of finding solutions for the problems related to their professional and social status and professional ethics. The fact that the case of the journalists fired by Kanal 5 TV and the state of media in the country received little, if any coverage in the majority of media is rather indicative. The journalists reminded the public of the remarks on the media situation in Macedonia offered by the EC, and some even assumed that the EC will be even more critical in the new report and will note further deterioration of the situation. In their reporting, the journalists don't forget about the European framework, and some media used the demands presented by EU to see progress of European integration reforms as an excuse for some Government policies (such was the case with the professionalization of SCPC). A number of media were critical of the Government and its policies (the Ilievski case and the situation in the State Commission for Prevention of Corruption), while other media openly noted that Government’s policies were undoubtedly anti-NATO and anti-EU (the controversial views of Ambassador Trenevski). Some media were supportive of the Government and its policies, with notable tendency to approach the reporting selectively, as well as lower intensity of critical and commentatorial approach of their journalists and editors.
26