MEDIA AND MEDIA FREEDOMS February, 2021 Publisher: Centre for Democracy and Human Rights – CEDEM (www.cedem.me) For publisher: Milena Bešić Author: prof. Miloš Bešić, PhD Associate: Marko Pejović Design and graphics: Brain studio, Podgorica This project is partly funded by the USA Embassy to Podgorica. The opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations presented herein are the views of the author and do not necessarily reflect the view of the State Department/USA Government. 2 Introduction The Centre for Democracy and Human Rights – CEDEM, within the framework of the project “Strengthening the Capacities of Local Media for Reporting on Human and Minority Rights”, with the support of the USA Embassy to Podgorica, conducted the research on the topic of media and media freedoms in December 2020. Following the political changes that happened in 2020 and the removal of the Democratic Party of Socialists from power after thirty years, which was followed by special challenges for media and media actors, it is more than interesting to determine what goes on in the media scene. Especially when one has in mind the importance media have for the entire democratization process, as well as due to the challenges which media and their representatives have been faced with in recent years, not only in Montenegro, but on the entire western hemisphere. In short, the objectives/themes of the research can be defined in the following way: 1. Frequency of following different media 2. Frequency of following Internet portals 3. Measuring trust in media 4. Assessment of frequency and effects of fake news 5. Perception of the violation of media rights and freedoms 6. Position of journalists in Montenegro 7. Independence of media and influence of “power structures” on media reporting 8. Practice of media reporting on important issues and institutions 9. Relation between private and public media 10. Assessment of the work of institutions responsible for the improvement of media freedoms and the position of journalists The survey was conducted from 10th to 21st December 2020. The total of 999 interviewees took part in the survey. The sample was double-stratified, with random selection of interviewees in final sampling units. Two levels of stratification are: region and size of polling stations. Since three regions had been defined, and within each one of those three categories of polling stations by their sizes, all nine strata were being individually addressed in the sampling process. Primary sampling units were the polling stations, secondary the households, and final – the interviewees inside the households. Primary units were selected using the method of probability, proportionately to the size; secondary units were selected using stop-and-step method, while the final units were selected using the method of birthday date. The sample is representative for the entire adult population in Montenegro, and the standard measurement error for the phenomena with 50% incidence is +/- 3.1%. After applying these sampling criteria, 17 Montenegrin municipalities were being included in this survey. The percentage of refusals to take part in the survey can be qualified as very satisfying (8%) and, on the basis of the interviewers’ reports, it cannot be attributed to any systematic factors, but to situation type. Data collection was being hindered due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Following the data collection, with a view to reducing measurement error, post-stratification was made by gender, age and ethnic background. Post-stratification weightings range from 0.75 to 1.40, thus having the scope of 0.65, the arithmetic mean of 1.033 and the median of 1.008. Skewness and Kurtosis distribution of post-stratification weightings indicate normal distribution. The instrument used in the survey consisted of nine demographic and 53 substantial questions. The questions were of both open and closed type. In most cases, the questions were in the form of a matrix aimed at detecting the structure of the interviewees’ views. In these situations, four-grade ordinal rating scales are used, and it is the same when it comes to measuring attitudes using Likert assessment scale, 3 only in this case, five-point scale was being used for measuring attitudes. Basic features of the sample are presented in the graph below. Graph 1: Demographic features of the interview ees Coastal zone 26,0 Central part 44,0 Region North 30,0 Over EUR 1500 4,5 From EUR 1001 to 1500 5,9 From EUR 801 to 1000 8,5 From EUR 701 to 800 9,1 From EUR 601 to 700 14,6 From EUR 501 to 600 10,9 From EUR 401 to 500 13,0 From EUR 351 to 400 9,4 Income From EUR 301 to 350 7,1 From EUR 251 to 300 5,4 From EUR 201 to 250 4,7 from EUR 151 to 200 3,4 From EUR 101 to 150 1,7 from EUR 51 do 100 ,4 We have no income 1,4 Albanian 5,3 Bosniak_Moslim 12,7 Nation Serb 31,1 Montenegrin 50,9 55+ 32,8 Age 35-54 35,6 18-34 31,6 r Female 51,5 Male 48,5 Sex/Gende 0,0 10,0 20,0 30,0 40,0 50,0 60,0 Prior to exploring the attitudes on substantial issues, in our survey we determined the attitudes with regards to several questions concerning the situation in Montenegro. When it comes to the assessment of direction, a larger number of citizens consider that Montenegro has been moving along a wrong path, as compared to the reference number of those who think that Montenegro has been moving along the right path, with more than a significant number of those who have no attitudes with regards to this question (Graph 2). 4 Graph 2: Montenegro has been moving along - % 38,8 37,3 23,9 Right way Wrong way I don't know, I cannot assess With our second question we wished to determine the level of satisfaction with the state of democracy in Montenegro (graph 3). The data indicate that there are just over 11% of very satisfied, while over 30% express moderate level of satisfaction. On the other hand, over one third of the citizens express moderate dissatisfaction, while every fifth citizen is very dissatisfied with the state of democracy in Montenegro. Graph 3: Generally speaking, how much are you satisfied with the state of democracy in Montenegro - % 34,5 31,1 20,2 11,4 2,8 I am very satisfied I am mainly I am mainly I am not satisfied No answer dissatisfied dissatisfied at all The assessment of the future of democracy, however, is optimistic in relation to the estimate of the current state of democracy (Graph 4). In other words, citizens generally expect democracy to be progressing. More precisely, almost every fourth citizen thinks that in five years the situation will be considerably better, with almost 29% of those who think that the situation will be somewhat better. On the other hand, moderate pessimism is expressed by just over one fifth of the citizens, while, again, almost every fifth citizen has very pessimistic prediction with regards to the future state of democracy. 5 Graph 4. State of democracy in Montenegro in the next five years is going to be - % 28,7 22,1 21,6 19,5 8,2 Considerably A bit better A bit worse Considerably No answer better worse The last introductory-type question is of general nature, but it concerns media, rather, it is about a strict assessment of the degree of trust towards media contents (Graph 5). The data indicate that there is a very small percentage of citizens who express their full trust, but there is over 35% of those who express that “they mostly have trust”. On the other hand, over 30% express the attitude of moderate distrust towards the media, with almost one fourth of those who demonstrate no trust in media. In other words, cumulatively, one can say that distrust is more prominent in relation to trust. Graph 5: Generally speaking, how much do you trust in what you can see/hear/read in the media - % 35,7 30,9 23,7 8,1 1,6 I have great trust I mainly have I have mainly no I have very little No answer trust trust trust 6 Graph 5.1: General trust in media: SUM trust vs SUM distrust TrUst DistrUst 43,8 54,6 - % Frequency of media following and trust in media In the first place, the frequency of following all media is presented in the Table 1. In case all modalities of frequency are categorised in a clearer way, we can analyse the frequency of media following (Graph 6). The data indicate that TV is the most frequently followed type of media, then social networks and Internet portals. Radio is significantly less followed, with newspapers being the least followed. Table 1: Frequency of media following - % Many Several Once to Several Once to Several Once to Several Practically times a times a twice a times a twice a times a twice a times a never day day day week week month month year Television 13.5 29.3 27.4 12.9 5.4 1.9 1.5 .7 7.3 Radio 6.2 5.3 9.8 9.4 10.2 4.9 3.1 2.8 48.3 Newspapers 1.1 1.9 5.4 10.5 8.5 7.7 5.1 4.0 55.9 Internet portals 6.3 15.3 19.1 11.9 4.9 1.2 .9 .2 40.2 Social networks 16.2 14.6 14.5 6.7 3.8 1.6 .8 .2 41.7 Graph 6: Frequency of media following by frequency categories - % Every day Weekly Rarely Never TELEVISION 70,2 18,3 4,1 7,3 SOCIAL NETWORKS 45,3 10,5 2,5 41,7 INTERNET PORTALS 40,7 16,8 2,3 40,2 RADIO 21,3 19,6 10,9 48,3 NEWSPAPERS 8,4 19,0 16,8 55,9 7 Media following frequency is presented in the Table 2 and in the Graph 7.