NGO INFOCENTRE NEW MEDIA CENTER

MEDIA MIRROR

CONTENT ANALYSIS OF MACEDONIAN MEDIA REPORTING ON "A1“ AND “MPM” CASES (November-December 2010)

CONTENT ANALYSIS OF MACEDONIAN MEDIA REPORTING ON

"A1“ and “MPM” cases

(November-December 2010)

PREPARED BY: THE NGO INFOCENTRE AND THE NEW MEDIA CENTER

INTRODUCTION The NGO Infocentre, under the auspices of its “Media Mirror” Programme, supported by the Foundation Open Society Institute Macedonia (FOSIM), implemented a programme for monitoring of media coverage of the “A1” and “MPM” cases. The monitoring programme aimed to observe and analyze the respect for professional journalistic standards in media reporting on the said cases. The monitoring programme was implemented in three stages. The “A1 Case” was subject to monitoring activities in the period November 25-December 2, and again in the period December 24-29, 2010, while the "MPM Case" was followed in the period from December 13 to December 21, 2010. The analyses includes the coverage in eight daily newspapers (“”; “”; “”; “Večer”; “Vreme”; “”, “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 M TV).

1. MAIN INDICATORS USED IN THIS ANALYSIS

A. PERIODS OF TIME COVERED BY THIS ANALYSIS:

Period 1: November 25 - December 2, 2010, the „A1 Case“ MONITORED NEWSPAPERS / PROGRAMMING PACKAGES Number of ARTICLES Analysed media

- Print media (number of articles):

Dnevnik - 15 Špic - 15 Nova Makedonija – 9 Utrinski vesnik – 13 Vreme - 25 Večer - 14 Vest - 12

2 - Broadcast media (broadcast time - number of articles):

A1 TV News, 19:00 - 55 Kanal 5 TV News, 17:00 - 31 MTV1 News, 19:30 - 31 Telma TV News, 18:30 - 18 Sitel TV News, 18:00 - 40 Alfa TV News, 17:30 - 12 Alsat M TV News, 22:30 - 12

Period 2: December 13 - December 21, 2010, the „MPM Case“

Analysed media

- Print media (number of articles):

Dnevnik - 2 Špic - 1 Nova Makedonija – 1 Utrinski vesnik – 1 Vreme - 7 Vest - 2 Večer - 0

- Broadcast media (broadcast time - number of articles):

A1 TV News, 19:00 - 9 Kanal 5 TV News, 17:00 - 0 MTV1 News, 19:30 - 0 Telma TV News, 18:30 - 0 Sitel TV News, 18:00 - 0 Alfa TV News, 17:30 - 0 Alsat M TV News, 22:30 - 0

Period 3: December 24 - December 29, 2010, the „A1 Case“

Analysed media

- Print media (number of articles):

Dnevnik - 17 Špic - 15 Nova Makedonija – 5 Utrinski vesnik – 11 Vreme - 18 Večer - 7 Vest – 4

3

- Broadcast media (broadcast time - number of articles):

A1 TV News, 19:00 - 28 Kanal 5 TV News, 17:00 - 10 MTV1 News, 19:30 - 14 Telma TV News, 18:30 - 10 Sitel TV News, 18:00 - 16 Alfa TV News, 17:30 - 6 Alsat M TV News, 22:30 - 7

2. METHODOLOGY AND FIELD OF ANALYSIS

The monitoring analyzed the quality of the contents of the reporting in seven (7) daily newspapers and seven (7) television broadcast services that reported the developments surrounding the so-called “A1 Case” and “MPM Case” during the three monitoring periods: a) November 25 - December 2, 2010; b) December 13 – 21, 2010; and c) December 24-29, 2010. The contents analysis used additional quantitative indicators on the scope, frequency and balance in the broadcasting of the contents on the two topics. The selection of the media included in the monitoring was based on their reach to large audiences on the whole territory of the Republic of Macedonia (hereinafter RM) and, therefore, the greatest effect they have on the creation of public opinion in the country. The analysis covered seven daily newspapers in , while the list of broadcasters included the public broadcasting service MRTV, the five national broacasters with license to broadcast programmes on the whole territory of Macedonia - A1 TV, Sitel TV, Kanal 5 TV, Telma TV and Alsat TV, and Alfa TV which holds license to broadcast terrestrially in region and can broadcast nationally over the satellite. The Analysis covered 190 articles in the print media1 and 299 TV reports on "A1" and "MPM” cases. The articles published by the print media included a variety of genres, including reports, commentaries, editorials and columns. The contents of the columns by authors who are not part of the editorial offices were viewed separately and were not included in the findings and results of the analysis, and their numbers were included only as part of the quantitative indicators that show the number of articles dedicated to this subjects in the media included in the analyses.

1 In the given circumstances, Vreme and Špic were not published on November 26 and November 27, and returned to the kiosks on November 29, 2010.

4 3. ANALYSIS OF ARTICLES AND TV REPORTS

3.1 The analysis covers three (3) time periods of coverage of two (2) events that dominated the media reporting - the "A1 Case” and the “MPM Case”. The shere numbers of published contents - 299 TV reports and 190 articles in the print media - far exceeded the coverage of all other topics during the three periods of time covered by this analysis.

3.2 After the events of November 25, 2010, and the inspection by the tax authorities, the Public Revenue Office and the financial police2 in six of the total of 26 companies with offices in the building on “Pero Nakov” Street3 that houses A1 TV, "Vreme", "Špic" and "Koha e re" dailies and the "Misirkov“ Printing Company, there was intensive media coverage of the developments4 and effort to promote intensive public debate on the events, which received great attention in the media and caused quite a stir in the general public. In the first week alone5, a total of 302 information items were distributed (65.9% of them, i.e. 199 TV reports, interviews and analyses in the covered TV programmes, and 34.1%, i.e. 103 articles in the print media, reports, editorial comments, interviews, etc.). Quantitative indicators demonstrate that A1 TV and "Vreme” daily led the coverage in the first week after the initial event, with 55 and 25 items, respectively. They are followed by Sitel TV with 40, MTV1 with 31, Kanal 5 TV with 31 among broadcasters, and „Špic" and „Dnevnik“ with 15 articles each, and „Večer“ with 14 articles among daily newspapers. These figures demonstrate, among other things, the very specific nature of the subject matter in which the three analyzed media - A1 TV, "Vreme” and “Špic” appear not only as transmitters of information, but are involved in the reported events themselves. In that context, the media were removed from the customary position of neutral reporters of information, and their auto-referential coverage does impact the quantity of presented information and units of contents, so that the bulk of their space is dedicated to this topic. In a situation of enhanced production of contents on a give topic, a certain communications coupling is created with the other media that have different approach to the events and also produce increased volume of contents on the topic, attempting to maintain their position of public opinion makers. As a result, the process of positioning develops into a process of juxtpositioning that further gains a dimention off strong media confrontation. The two poles offer quite different information and perceptions about the reported events and the public is under the impression that the media are engaged in intensive “campaigning” and “counter- campaigning” to impose their respective views and positions.

2 In addition to the UJP and the financial police, the six companies located on „Pero Nakov“ street were also subject of controls by the Inspectorate of Labour (Telma, November 26, 2010). 3 Some reports later noted that the actual postal address of the building is Pero Nakov 60. 4 The inspection was extended to cover three other entities. „The orders of the Investigative Judge from Basic Court Skopje 1 – Skopje, cover not just the offices of the involved companies, but also the auxiliary facilities. These orders refer to other legal entities, not to A1 Television“, Ivo Kotevski, Assistant to the Minister of Interior for Public Relations, Sitel, December 1, 2010. 5 The period November 25 – December 2, 2010.

5 А1 55 Sitel 40 Кanal 5 31 МTV1 31

Table 1: Television services with largest number of aired television reports on the “A1 case” in the news programmes, November 25 – December 2, 2010

Vreme 25 Dnevnik 15 Špic 15 Večer 14 Utrinski vesnik 13 Vest 12 Nova Makedonija 9

Table 2: Total number of published articles on the “A1 case in the daily newspapers, November 25 – December 2, 2010

16 14 12 10 A1 8 Sitel 6 Kanal 5 4 MTV1 2 0 26,11 27,11 28,11 29,11 30,11

Table 3: Number of reports on the “A1 case” in the television broadcasters with largest numbers of reports in the period November 26-30, 2010

6 60

50

40 A1 30 Sitel Kanal5 20 MTV1 10

0 25,11 26,11 27,11 28,11 29,11 30,11

Table 4: Length of reports (in minutes) aired in the period November 26-30, 20106 by the television broadcasters with largest number of reports on the “A1 case”

14 12 Dnevnik 10 Nova Makedonija 8 Utrinski vesnik 6 Večer Vreme 4 Špic 2 Vest 0 27,11 29,11 30,11

Table 5: Number of published articles on the “A1 case” in the period November 27-30, 20107

3.2 The coverage of the "A1 case“ had another peak after the events of December 23, 2010 and the arrest and detention of a number of suspectes in the so-called „Pero Nakov Street case“, including the owner and the director of A1 TV. During that period, there were similar dynamic and scope of coverage to the previous monitored period, as follows:

А1 28 Sitel 16 Kanal 5 10 MTV 14

6 There is no data on Sitel TV for November 28, 2010, due to the fact that it carried a live broadcast from unrelated event. 7 ”Vreme” and „Špic“ didn’t come out on Nomveber 26 and 27, 2010.

7 Telma 10 Alfa 6 Alsat 7

Table 6: Number of broadcast TV reports on the “A1 case” in the news programmes, December 24-29, 2010

Vreme 18 Dnevnik 17 Špic 15 Večer 7 Utrinski vesnik 11 Vest 4 Nova Makedonija 5

Table 7: Total number of published articles on the “A1 case” in the daily newspapers, December 25 – 29, 2010

9 8 7 6 A1 5 Sitel 4 Kanal5 3 MTV1 2 1 0 24,12 25,12 26,12 27,12 28,12

Table 8: Number of reports on the “A1 case” in the television broadcasters with with largest number of reports, Deember 24-28, 2010

8 35 30 25 A1 20 Sitel 15 Kanal5 10 MTV1 5 0 24,12 25,12 26,12 27,12 28,12

Table 9: Length of reports (in minutes) aired in the period December 24-28, 2010 by the television broadcasters with largest number of reports on the “A1 case”

12

10 Dnevnik 8 Nova Makedonija Utrinski vesnik 6 Večer 4 Vreme Špic 2 Vest 0 25,12 27,12 28,12

Table 10: Number of published articles on the “A1 case” in the print media December 25-28, 2010

3.3 Regarding the so-called „MPM Case“, the following situation was determined:

Vreme 7 Dnevnik 2 Špic 1 Večer 0 Utrinski vesnik 1 Vest 2 Nova Makedonija 1

Table 11: Total number of published articles on the “MPM case” December 13-21, 2010

Among television broadcasters covered by this monitoring, only A1 TV covered the case in a total of nine (9) reports.

9 3.4.1 The headlines of articles and reports are an important indicator of the approach to the reported contents. Due to the scope of infrormation placed in Macedonian media - print, broadcast and online likewise - the headlines are an important factor in the process of selection and channeling towards the recepients of intended messages. The content analysis in this area shows that the approach of the media is significantly different, starting with the very names used to denote events and involved subjects:

„А1“ Involved institutions and officials

Dnevnik The Case: Tax pyramid scheme, Minister Jankulovska, 8 incidents, Hedis-revolution inspectors .

Owner, media: Old fox, Pharaoh, Farmer meddling with politics, media empire.

Nova Makedonija The Case: Romanian scenario9, spiderweb

Owner, media: Ramkovski, Velija Ramkovski10. Utrinski vesnik The Case: Drama, spider web, fall of the Jankulovska, the media tycoon. Government.

The Owner, the media: Ramkovski, Velija Ramkovski11, the self-absorbed, B1 Television12, Velija, the boss, media tycoon. Večer The Case: Raid at „Pero Nakov Street“, The Public Revenue Office, covering crimes13, Velija's spider web. State Inspectorate of Labour, market inspectors, Kotevski, The Owner, the media: Velija14, the Ivo Kotevski, Goran grocer15, the bastion on Pero Nakov Street, Trajkovski. the Grocery affair16, Velija’s clan17, Velija the millionaire. Vest The Case: Shenanigans in six Public Revenue Office (UJP), companies18, “cash, lies and videotapes”. Ministry of Interior (MVR), financial police, Public The Owner, the media: Velija Prosecutor, the Ramkovski. Ombudsman19, Stavrevski20, Inspectorate of Labour, Association of Journalists of Macedonia (AJM)

8 Inspections shake up Ramkovski, November 27, 2010. 9 „To bring down the government” (our note). 10 Headlines used only the full names, like A1, A1 TV, Ramkovski, Velija Ramkovski. 11 „ramkovski’s Media“, А1. 12 Editorial comment, Nina Nineska-Fidanoska, November 30, 2010. 13 Journalism as cover for crime, November 29, 2010. 14 „It is Velija or the State“, November 29, 2010. 15 „The grocer faces trial“, November 30, 2010. 16 „Students, too, manipulated in the ‘Grocery’ affair”, December 1, 2010. 17 Refers to the people arrested on December 23, 2010. 18 „Cash, Lies and Videotapes”, „UJP suspects wrongdoings in six companies located at the same address”, November 25, 2010. 19 „The Ombudsman, OSCE, EU and the U.S. will be informed about the Case”, November 29, 2010. 20 Zoran Stavrevski, Minister of Finance.

10 А1 The Case: The invasion of A121, sealed Broadcasting Council, UJP, media, illegal procedure, censorship, A1 the Police, AJM, Stavrevski, incident, procedural violations. Selami22, Todorovski23, MVR24, AJM Ethics The Owner, the media: Velija Commission. Ramkovski, A1, Vreme, Špic, Koha e re. Кanal 525 / / MTV126 / / Telma The Owner, the media: Ramkovski, the Broadcasting Council, businessman Ramkovski. National Council for EU Integrations (NCEI), UJP, investigative judge. Špic The Case: Vengeful detention, terror over A1, Vreme, Špic and Koha e Re. Vreme Čadikovski The Government27, violent policemen28, inspection. Špic The Case: Undemocratic rule, invation of The Police A1 TV.

Ramkovski. Sitel The Case: Inspection of companies on Inspectorate of labour, Pero Nakov Street, organized crime, the Broadcasting Council, UJP, Pero Nakov Str. affair, events at Pero financial inspection, Nakov Str., tax evasion and double book- Stavrevski, MVR, AJM. keeping, the "Spider web" raid.

The Owner, the media: Velija29, Velija Ramkovski's clan30. Alfa The Case: The events at A1 TV. Broadcasting Council, the Government, UJP, MVR, Jankulovska, Švrgovski31, Anti-Corruption Commission, Gruevski, inspectors. Alsat The Case: Tensions in front of A1, the / „Pero Nakov Str. Case“, “Spider web” raid.

The Owner, the media: Ramkovski32, Čadikovski. Table 12. Phrases and words used to denominate the actors and events in the headlines of analyzed media coverage of the "A1 Case"

3.4.2 In general, the overview of headlines leads to the conclusion that the media used variety of techniques, vivid description of events and involved actors, use of slang, unfounded analogies, even pejorative names and attribution, engaged in comprehensive repeated qualifications of actors and events. The problem of such a qualification of the reported

21 The headline “Invation of A1” is repeated in several reports and is developed as a topical headline that outgrew the limitations of a single report, A1 news, November 25-28, 2010. 22 Ilmi Selami, President of Anti-Corruption Commission. 23 Ljupčo Todorovski, Head of the Offfice of Public Security. 24 „MVR Vs. A1“, December 1, 2010. 25 The reports on Kanal 5 TV are aired without headlines. 26 Reports on MTV1 news are aired without headlines. 27 „Brussels demands from the Government to leave the media alone“, November 30, 2010. 28 „The Police Invesigates Violent Policement“, November 27, 2010. 29 „Crvenkovski – SDSM won’t defend Velija if he committed criminal offenses”, December 2, 2010. 30 „Velija Ramkovski’s Clan Arrested“, November 24, 2010. 31 The Public Prosecutor of Macedonia, Ljupčo Švrgovski. 32 „Ramkovski on the Wall“, November 29, 2010.

11 subject doesn’t lie in the jounalists’ comments, integrated also in the headlines, but the fact that media qualifications are used with specific purpose to provide the framework for the interpretation of information presented by the reporters and by the actors involved in the events. To a degree that varies from one media and one headline to another, they try to lead the readers and viewers to a certain specific interpretation and function as "rhetoric determinators” of a sort, instruments to restrict the possible interpretations of presented information. In addition, in several instances, the media qualification of actors or events was registered only in the headlines33. The media that were directly involved in the events due to its very nature - A1, Vreme, Špic - use strong expressive headlines to describe the actions by the authorities34, and such a language doesn't have a correlative in the headlines used by the other media.

3.4.3 The differences in the denomination of events and actors further develops in the actual articles and reports. Therefore, we have the following examples35 from the coverage of the events on November 25, 201036:

А1 - invasion - true police siege - incident - governments’ attempt to deal with the critically inclined media

Dnevnik - tensions around and in A1 TV - the events at A1 TV - incidents at A1 TV - police raid at A1 TV - media mogul Velija Ramkovski, Velija Ramkovski – the old fox of Macedonian media scene, (Ramkovski) a true master of the art of circumvention of laws

Nova - despicable reality shows that lasted for hours Makedonija - legitimate action turned into a circus

Utrinski - another sad night in Macedonian incomplete transition vesnik - the events at A1 - intervention at A1 - events in front of A1 TV - night-long search - dramatic evening - events at „Pero Nakov Street“ - dramatic night - police handling (of the journalists of A1, Špic and Vreme) - brutal police invasion of A1 - a night of the long knives in the offices and in the yard of A1 TV - scandalous invasion of an independent television

33 For example: „Velija’s Clan Arrested!”, Večer, December 25, 2010. 34 For example, invasion, censorship, etc. 35 In terms of names used to denominate the actors, there were deviations from direct use of actual names, by name or by surname, as well as use of attributes and appositions as a comment, added to the names of involved persons and entities. 36 The debate on the topic spread to the social media and internet. Facebook groups were created in support of A1 – “Gather 2,000 people to liberate A1”, with 37,922 members, and a group against A1 – “Shut-Down A1 (the Anti-Macedonian Television) Forever”, with 2,621 members. On Twitter: over 1,600 tweets by approximately 200 different users were posted in the period November 25-28, under the tag #opsada alone.

12 Večer - events at „Pero Nakov Street“

Vest - inspections in six companies with registered offices on Pero Nakov bb - events at A1 TV

Sitel - the „Pero Nakov bb“ affair - the site where the people of A1 TV turned the inspections by competent insitutions into a circus - unnecessary drama - alleged invasion of media’s independence - the drama on „Pero Nakov Street“ - controls of companies located on „Pero Nakov Street“

Alfa - an incident (that divided the media) - the events at A1 TV

Kanal 5 - incident in front of A1 TV - police intervention in front A1 TV's building - the „Pero Nakov bb“ affair - stormy Trursday night

Alsat - tense situation in front of A1 TV - the police action at A1 TV

МТВ1 - police action in „Pero Nakov bb“

Telma - events in and around A1

Table 13. Terms used to denote the events of November 25, 2010, in the analyzed articles and reports

In terms of denomination, there are significant differences in the contents of articles and reports dedicated to the subject topic. The media engaged in accentuated qualifications of events and circumstances in which they transpired, as indicated in the section on the used headlines. They do that through combination of select information and comments by the journalists that often erases the distinction between the information and the comments, offering confusing and unclear picture of the events. Such media coverage provides not just differing, but totally opposed and contradictory information. They don’t shed light on different aspects of the events, but aim to create opposed media presentations.

13 3.4.4 Regarding the events of December 23, 2010 and the arrest of the suspected persons in the case, including the owner and the director of A1 TV, the following terms were used:

А1 - mass arrests at A1 TV, (arrests) as in a film, spectacular arrests, the owner and the director arrested, operation against Ramkovski and the employees under code-name "Spiderweb", 34-hour long police and judicial procedure Dnevnik - “Spider web” action Nova Makedonija - “Spiderweb” - Spider web case Utrinski vesnik - police operation Spiderweb, Spiderweb

- media boss, Macedonian media tycoon37 Večer - operational procedure “Spiderweb” - Velija, Velija Ramkovski's clan Vest - "Spiderweb" police operation Vreme - illegal midnight arrests, murdering democracy, police operation “Spiderweb”, the owner of the broadcaster arrested, dealing with insubordinate media, spectacular arrests, grave violation of basic human freedoms - Ramkovski, Velija Ramkovski - the shepherd, little dictator Špic - police demonstration of power38 - “Spiderweb” operation - spectacular arrest of Velija Ramkovski - invasion of A1 television39 - reprisals - massive action by prosecution authorities - searches - merciless detention for Ramkovski family - new threats and pressure directed at journalists - orchestrated attack on A1 TV and “Špic”, “Vreme” and “Koha e re” dailies Sitel - “Pero Nakov” affair, “Spiderweb” Operation, “Spiderweb” action Alfa - “Spiderweb” police operation, actions at Pero Nakov Street, Pero Nakov tax evasion pyramid scheme Kanal 5 - Spiderweb, “Spiderweb” operation, “Spiderweb” investigation, “Spiderweb” case, Ramkovski’s media monopoly, the web in Pero Nakov street МTV1 - "Spiderweb" operation, fight against organized crime and corruption, "Spiderweb" case Telma - action, arrest of businessman Velija Ramkovski, the Ramkovski case, operation with a code-name “Spiderweb” Alsat - a case40, the Ramkovski case, the case of the companies on Pero Nakov street, the "Spiderweb" case Table 14. Terms used to denote the events of December 25, 2010, in the analyzed articles and reports

In conclusion, we could say that there is a strict distinction between the terms used by the group of media directly involved in the case (A1, Špic, Vreme) and the other television stations and newspapers. While the former operate along the line of intensified critical language and dramatisation of the events41, the latter predominantly uses the terminology used by official institutions ("Spiderweb"). In the second case, in spite of the formal precision

37 The names used to denote the owner of A1 Television are listed in the editorial comments by Nina Nineska-Fidanovska (our note). 38 „This whole demonstration of power by the police was condemned by the public that, by coincidence or intentionally, gathered in front of the Criminal Court in Skopje”, December 12, 2010. 39 „In Latin American style, a dozen or so members of the Alpha Police team raided A1 Television and arrested the owner Velija Ramkovski, who was in the company of the MP Fijat Canovski at the time”, December 25, 2010. 40 „In this case, SDSM leader accused Gruevski of brutal actions directed against all those who think differently. According to Crvenkovski, the arrests were proof that the Government is preventing the democracy in Macedonia”, December 24, 2010. 41 „Three appeals for the detention, all mercilessly dismissed”, Špic, December 28, 2010

14 of reporting, it should be noted that the media manifest weak analytical powers regarding the information coming from official sources. There are characteristics of the so-called “registration journalism”, non-critical transmission of information presented by official sources. As far as the information, statements and other contents presented by the editors and journalists of A1, Vreme and Špic are concerned, as well as the defense lawyers, we could note that thez are intended to create a formal balance of reporting.

3.5 The key element for the course of events and comprehensive approach of the “A1 Case” is the work and behaviour of the members of the Police, inspectors and other involved civil servants, as direct participants in the events. The media reported them as follows:

А1: (1) “Journalists that have followed the situation in the media for years... note that it was unacceptable to prevent journalists from doing their jobs, not to mention beat them up".42

(2) Evidently, police officers from the organized crime department of the Public Security Bureau appear on the video footage recorded by A1. We don’t know yet who sealed the servers and the internet sector of the television, and who then removed the seal. Just as they were sealed without a warrant or explanation, the seal was removed in the same manner several hours later.

МTV1: “Some of the actors were placed at the door, to push around and provoke the police, and when that provocation failed, there was a new directive - act as if being hit".

Špic: (1) “Two dozen inspectors, financial police (?!) accompanies by at least five times more officers of the uniformed police (as if they were searching the New York Stock Exchange) and about 50 or so members of the special tacticts unit (to make sure Al Jazeera or, God forbid, Bin Laden won’t jump in to help) dug in for several hours long siege of a media company. It is boiling inside the TV station, it is boiling outside among the people, the atmosphere is heated. In a matter of hours, literally everthing turned blue like the ocean. Uniformed police is filtering everything that moves, everything moving in or out of the TV station. They work in silence. Like the plankton. And it wasn’t just them that worked hard. One should have seen the inspectors, like bees, turning page after page after page”.

(2) “So, the journalists have worked hard all day to prepare the news and left for home just before the start of the central news programme. The police stops them and doesn't let them leave".

Vreme: “The Internal Control at MVR conducts thorough checks of actions of policemen that prevented the free movement of journalists of A1 television last Thursday. Television footage shows clearly that Policemen restrict the movement of reporting teams, and applied physical force on some of the journalists. First the journalists were prevented from leaving the building, and then some of them were attacked by the police.

42 A1 News, November 28, 2010.

15 Vreme: “Mladen Čadikovski announced that they will present video footage today that clearly shows the policemen exceeded their authority. - We made these submissions in the attempt to held the police to better investigate the events at the TV station and, consequently, improve its professional conduct standards. I can't comment on what the outcome of the investigation may be, but I believe that MVR has professionals who know how to do their job".

The other media made only minimal mention, or didn’t mention at all, the journalists' submissions of materials to Ministry of Interior's Internal Control Office, on the work of the Police during the events.

3.6 The reporting on the role the journalists of A1 TV, Vreme, Špic and Koha e re played during the events of November 25 is of particularly great importance to secure a clear and comprehensive picture. The information on that matter differ greatly from one analyzed media to the next. On one hand, according to reports by A1, Vreme and Špic, the reporters and other employees were made actual actors of the events due to the actions of the Police which restricted their movement outside and inside the building, preventing them from doing their jobs43. They noted that cameras were present in the rooms in which tax authorities conducted inspections, which was noted as a problem, to register the fact that no pressure was made on the tax office officials and that the engagement of the Police was unjustified. According to other media, the involvement of journalists and other employees was planned and intentional, to prevent the work of inspection officials:

А1: (1) “The Police is still in front of A1 Television. We are under virtual siege by the police, and it has gone on for more than an hour. The Police closed the gate. All people entering or leaving the premises are registered, without explanation why or how, the only thing missing is for them to do body searches. They say, those are the orders of our superior officers. Who are those superior officers? They just raise their shoulders“.

(2) “At this moment, A1 resembles a mini military base where birds are not allowed to fly over without presenting ID first, but, what I want to say is that freedom of movement for journalists and employees of A1 TV can't be restricted. I don't know what could be the reason for this..."

Sitel: (1) “in order to prolong the drama, in the presence of cameras of other broadcasters, the employees posted signs stating those were offices of A1 TV on all sealed doors".

(2) “those who made journalism hostage to the personal interests of the owner and to political interests of the opposition continue to mislead and manipulate the public opinion”.

(3) “last night, every detail of the inspection was recorded on camera”.

43 „Nobody prevents the inspectors from doing their jobs, and we didn’t interrupt the broadcasts to complain about the inspections, but about the restricted freedom of movement for the journalists and employees of A1 without explanation”, Špic, December 1, 2010.

16 (4) “just before the start of the central news programme, journalists started entering the offices where the inspectors were held and, under the guise that they were looking for recorded footage, tried to take out whole folders with documents”.44

(5) “After last night’s drama and comotion created by the employees of A1 Television over the inspection controls taking place on the same address and are not connected to the television whatsoever, the situation at Pero Nakov bb is calm today".

МTV1: (1) “Last night, the journalists of this medium misinformed the public with impudence”.45

(2) “Insolent abuse of a media company and serious manipulation of public opinion”.

(3) “A1 Television broadcast serious misinformation, alleging that the station was a target of police invasion. The public was misled, seriously questioning the credibility of the medium".

(4) “While A1’s journalists literally played victims, the drivers carried out bags filled with money and computers from the premises on Pero Nakov street, taking them to a flat in Čair neighbourhood, and the inspectors were intentionally held in other rooms".

(5) “Yesterday evening, the A1 Television and the opposition stood in defence of crime”.

(6) When UJP knocks on the doors of commercial companies, we will make it a huge drama and will say that A1 was being invaded - the perfidious scenario we saw in action six days ago at Pero Nakov Street had its premiere back in 2006, when the office of Prime Minister was held by (Vlado) Bučkovski.

Nova Makedonija: (1) “Whatever A1’s journalists did, regardless how much they would want to present themselves as victims of state’s oppression, they will have to accept the responsibility for the betrayal of the profession and taking the side of political propagandists and manipulators”.46

(2) “They manipulated the public, insolently and intentionally. They hid an important information to be able to act the “spontaneous” dramatic piece on endangered journalistic freedom and attempt to cause the fall of dictatorship by doing a re-run of the Romanian scenario - televised revolution".

(3) “It is no use now, no matter how much they show around their broken fingers and bruises and demand legal action from the institutions they tried to bring down, knowing that on Thursday night it was them that roughed up the whole nation and humiliated the whole state".

44 The report doesn’t list the sources of this information. 45 Interview with Minister of Interior Gordana Jankulovska, November 26, 2010. 46 November 29, 2010.

17 3.7 In the context of the already divergent coverage, the audience is presented with dissonant reports on the reactions abroad:

МTV1: (1) “There is no significant concern in Brussels about yesterday’s operation and the control that the financial police conducted in a number of companies located on Pero Nakov Street, in the same building with A1 Television.

(2) "There was no mention, not a word on the leading websites of the events that took place last night in Skopje, in a private company in Pero Nakov street, in the building that also houses the A1 Television”.

Dnevnik:47 “(The foreigners) believe that the Police exceeded its authority, that the Ministry of Interior played a bad game, that their PR was below subpar. Government ministers (I won’t name any names, but they will recognize themselves) sent tons of SMS messages to the mobile phones of foreign ambassadors to complain about A1’s actions, and at the same time accuse left and round for that practice. Here, they have an opinion about A1's broadcasts of Thursday night. It could be summed up in two words - the journalists too emotional. Considering the circumstances, that is understandable”.

Sitel: (1) “Christian Werschit, the correspondent for Austrian national television for the Balkans, says that the media should not provide cover for criminal activities. The owners have to pay their taxes, he says“.48

(2) “The ‘Pero Nakov bb’ case is not about opression of the media, but a case of organized crime. The Mixed European-Macedonian Commission will discuss this case, but in the commission on organized crime (and corruption), not the one on the media".

Špic: “The invasion of A1 Television and the events of last Thursday will be put on official Brussels' agenda today. On Friday mourning we already had strong verbal reactions by high-ranking European representatives worried about the democracy in the country”.49

3.8. The selective approach to information and the high level of planned and biased direction of contents is reflected in the articles and reports presenting the reactions of citizens and other public subjects:

МTV1: (1) “If companies don’t pay, the UJP needs to do its job. If inspection is needed, and they were prevented, they should follow the word of the Law“.- “If I can pay for my taxi service for 10 years, how come the other can’t, and they have all those millions? And I work alone and I have ill members in my family“.- “Even if they paid, the Tax office has the right to conduct inspections. Everybody is obligated to receive them, meet their requests and present the documentation. It is not right for the press to call for a lynch“.

47 November 29, 2010. 48 November 30, 2010 49 November 29, 2010

18 (2) “The Association of Defenders from the Conflict of 2001 are appalled by the way A1 Television treated them. They demand, they say, to be left out of political and business games played by Velija Ramkovski and not be involved in an attempt to defend criminal activities. They can’t forget how A1 treated them before and after 2001, when reports depicted them as common criminals, not fighters for their homeland”.

А1: (1) “Between the start of the raid at 18:30 hours and midnight, A1 reached 40% ratings of all citizens that watched television. The appearances of Government representatives and their attempts to convince the citizens that this was not a raid of A1 TV on other television stations was far less noticed by Macedonian viewers“.

(2) A record number of comments with support for A1 Television arrive from many foreign countries and from all cities and towns in Macedonia. Support for A1 on the behalf of all of Ohrid. Support for A1 from Kriva Palanka. I am speechless, this is a shame, the whole of Kavadarci is with A1. Support for A1 from Kratovo. The people who commented on A1 Television’s website mostly encourage the employees to hold on with the words: Hang on A1; God forbid, they will start killing journalists; how can they do this to the most real television station; the revolt of the people is enormous; it is a shame for this Government we voted in power ourselves”.

(3) Citizen of Štip 1: I am all for free press, for free democratic expression, but we need to know the truth in this society. Reporter: What do you think about events yesterday? Citizen of Štip 2: Democracy in Macedonia is lost, so, Mr. Gruevski and the current Government want something, all that is best in Macedonia should disappear. Why should they go after A1? If there was an inspection, they should do their job, why so much riot policemen, is there a war in Macedonia? They got us back 20 years in time. Citizen of Štip 3: This is crazy, somebody must be crazy in the leadership of the country. Way up there.

The dominant conclusion of the analyses of sections 3.5., 3.6. and 3.7. is that when the media cover the events, they focus their coverage selectively on a single aspect that is intensified, while all other aspects and factors that affected the course of events are ignorred. The intensive focus on a selection of aspects proves to be an often exploited method of de- contextualisation and leading the public towards the preferred and desired conclusions. This is a case of use of so-called "framing technique", which represses the informing function and is inclined towards the fucntion to convince or impose views and positions. Dramatisation technique are also present and are aimed to instigate and exploit the audience's fears. A huge part of contents presented in that context have no listed sources and are reduced to pure speculation.50 Assuming that the press received some of the information through anonymous and unofficial channels, from witnesses or actors in the events, clearly they were

50 Večer, November 27, 2010: „Velija Ramkovski’s insolence has no limits. He didn’t just prevent the inspectors from doing their job, but he also didn’t let the people that formally manage those companies to meet the inspectors and sent instead his lawyer Luiza Staić. She appeared around 18:00 hours, saying that she was at the hairdresser’s and couldn’t make it earlier. Having in mind that UJP and the financial police were prevented from working for 16 months, they asked for simple police assistance. Velija Ramkovski then decides to activate A1 Television in his defence. Although the people at A1 knew well that there were inspectors in the offices around them, that there are common policemen in the parking lot who were there because of the inspection at the six suspect companies, although they knew that it had nothing to do with A1 Television, they started the 19:00 hours news with a dramatic and theatrical question: ‘What is the police doing at A1 Television?’ and with the claim that there was an ongoing invasion on the broadcaster and they can’t work. Thus, Ramkovski tried once again to hide his suspect businesses, subject to inspection, behind the A1 Television. But this time, he failed. What transpired then was there for the whole public to see, we don’t need to remind them here “.

19 presented to the public in a non-critical and unprofessional manner, significantly undermining their quality.

3.9 The principle of presumption51 of innocence was frequently violated in the reporting of the media that were included in this analysis: Vecer:52 (1) “Velija’s companies poisoned and stole from the citizens”.

(2) “Who here wouldn’t be a millionaire if allowed, for over a decade, to evade his taxes, build illegally, build a house in the forested area on Vodno under the guise that it was a shelter for climbers and alpinists... why should we all be punished to have to pay our taxes, follow the regulation on construction, while Velija Ramkovski is allowed to do all that and nobody should try to ensure that the law will apply on him, too”.

Kanal 5: “At least 20 people have been tied to the pyramid scheme made of six companies with address on Pero Nakov bb".

Sitel: (1) "The director... of A1 Television was arrested over the practice to pay the salaries to the employees in cash”.

(2) “The 'Spiderweb’ of MVR and UJP caught 23 persons involved in a tax pyramid scheme worth over €17 million”.

(3) “That is Jasmin, I can't remember the last name at this moment, caught red-handed when he was trying to erase the data from A1’s computer centre”.53

А1: “'Sadam’ is the pseudonim used by the secret services for a well-known journalist and editor, former director of Vreme daily. The documents held by A1 indicate that the pseudonim is used to cover the identity of Aleksandar Damovski, one of the founders of Dnevnik daily, now working for the MPM Group. He denounced people for Serb nationalism during the transition. Today, 'Sadam' was given privileged status in the spectacular police operation against Ramkovski".

Dnevnik: (1) “The old media fox in hand-cuffs”.54

(2) “Ramkovski is the pharaoh of the tax evasion pyramid”.55

51 The majority of television stations didn’t blur the faces of the suspects that are not public personalities when they were taken to the investigative judge for questioning. 52 This medium published a partial list of the suspects on December 25, and full list with the 23 names of the suspects on December 27, 2010. 53 December 24, 2010. 54 December 25, 2010. 55 Ibid.

20 3.10 Sporadically, the indirect speech and conditional tenses were used to denote scepticism about presented statements, in order to indirectly suggest to the viewer how he or she should interpret those statements: -А1: “The Director of UJP Trajkovski claims the operation was legitimate... Jankulovska assumed that the money were taken out of the offices on Pero Nakov street”.

-МTV1: “Macedonian democracy had the chance to succeed, journalism would not die. A1 TV's editor in chief expressed the gratitude for the support they received“.

Utrinski vesnik: “SDSM will prosecute Jankulovska for prosecuting Velija alone” 56.

4. In the context of this analysis, the "MPM Case" received much lesser coverage. Still, it was registered as a case of media promotion of a given topic. The case was presented by A1 Television (nine reports in the period December 13-21, 2010) and critically covered by “Vreme” (7) and "Špic“ (1 article). Reaction to that coverage was registered in "Dnevnik“ (2), “Nova Makedonija” (1), “Utrinski vesnik” (1) and “Vest” (2). The efforts of the said media were aimed for the information they presented to lead to reaction by competent authorities to sanction the alleged illegal actions. In this case, "Dnevnik”, “Utrinski vesnik” and “Vest” found themselves in a situation to report on events involving the company that publishes the three dailies. Their reaction was limited in its scope and was reduced, during the period covered by this analysis, to the presentation of the denial issued by "MPM“. А1: (1) "Major scandal at WAZ Corporation. An employee of ‘Media Print Macedonia’, the publisher of ‘Dnevnik’, 'Vest’ and ‘Utrinski’ dailies, was caught attempting to enter Hungary with €750 thousand in cash, hidden in a bottle. According to the document presented to A1 Television, an official letter from Hungarian financial intelligence services to the Macedonian Agency for Prevention of Money Laundering, a certain Dušan Ognjanovski transported the cash from “Media Print Macedonia” to the mother-company in Vienna. Both companies are part of the German WAZ Group. The letter states that Ognjanovski didn’t act on the obligation to report a tranport of the money to the border authorities".

(2) “The attempt to smuggle €750,000 in cash was not sufficient motive for the Police to launch investigation. Could that passivity of competent authoritiees be attributed to some hidden motives? The authorities didn't offer an explanation why the information that the driver of MPM, company that owns three daily newspapers in Macedonia, caught on Hungarian border with an astonishing amount of cash hidden in a bottle, is being kept in some drawer”.

(3) “Srđan Kerim flew to Germany to report to his bosses from WAZ about the Hungarian scandal. The anchor: The scandal with the €750,000 in cash has the headquarters of WAZ media group interested, too. We learn unofficially that the first man of this company in Macedonia, Srđan Kerim, flew to Germany. There, he will have to explain to the management of the company why his driver, Dušan Ognjanovski, transported money in a bottle that he said belonged to MPM".

56 December 25, 2010.

21 Vreme: (1) “A representative of ‘Media Print Macedonia’ (MPM), the publisher of ‘Dnevnik’, ‘Vest’ and 'Utrinski vesnik’ dailies, was caught two years ago on Hungarian-Serbian border, trying to illegally transport €750,000 in cash,states the confidential document that Hungarian authorities sent to the Macedonian Office for Prevention of Money Laundering , which was presented to the editorial office of ‘Vreme’".

(2) “Hungarian authorities held the Macedonian citizen because the laws of the European Union, just as Macedonian legislation, strictly prohibit unregistered transports of money exceeding €10,000. The document states that Hungarian Customs Office fined MPM's employee to pay 150,000 Forint fine, c. €550 at current exchange rates".

Špic: (1) “'Špic' learns that Srđan Kerim yesterday fired about a dozen people from MPM’s administration. Well-informed sources say that the move was planned two months ago, when there was no hint of the affair with the €750,000 in cash that Hungarian customs authorities discovered in a bottle carried by that personal driver of the first man of WAZ in Macedonia. While it is unlikely that Kerim is now taking his vengeance on the people that surround him, the public knows well that the former diplomat has been known to make contradictory and vague statements. Recently, at the promotion of the new releases of the company, Kerim boasted the company's fine financial results. If that was the case, why would he fire peaple?”

(2) “We find the silence of MPM’s newspapers, just as the silence of journalists in other media who were very loud after the events at Pero Nakov street, rather strange. Why aren't the journalists of 'Dnevnik', 'Utrinski vesnik', 'Vest' and the other media interested in the events in MPM’s headquarters on Skupi Street? Doesn't this criminal affair raise suspicions about the credibility of the media managed by Srđan Kerim?"

The media from the MPM Group published the corporate statement of denial of allegations issued by Media Print Macedonia":

Dnevnik: “We cathegorically deny all insinuations aimed at 'Media Print Macedonia' presented in the media controlled by Velija Ramkovski. Not a single Euro of ours has been taken out of the country in an illegal manner! We fully understand the motivation behind such insinuations that aim to redirect the public attention from suspected criminal activities in the companies on ‘Pero Nakov bb'".

Vest: “Was an employee of MPM caught with unreported money on the Hungarian border - I wouldn't know that. Was he carrying €750,000 in a bottle – I don’t know that, either. Did he say that the money belonged the 'Media Print Macedonia' and he was carrying it to the company headquarters – I don't know. What I do know with great degree of certainty is that, if there was such a case involving that much money, the money certainly don't belong to 'Media Print Macedonia', and I can guarantee that, during my tenure as Director, together with Srđan Kerim (January 2006-December 2009), the company followed the Law to the letter. During that period, the company was subject to a great number of inspections by

22 state's institutions, and there was never a single objection to our operations. Similarly, there were no negative remarks in the reports of the international auditing firm that checks and verifies company's operations every year".57

The coverage of this case demonstrates the clear confrontation between two media groupings. For the involved media, the reporting is a way to wage a fight, and the prolonged presence of the topic in the media exceeds the demands for reaction by the institutions and grows into a campaign, in its own right, aimed to influence the image of the suspected media. It is also evident that, in a situation when all formal requirements and elements (listing of the sources, providing space to the other side, seeking information from the competent institutions and individuals, etc.) are met and presented, there is a variety of instruments used to sway the public opinion. Some of those are the intensified and prolonged presence of the messages that could convince the public that the discussed subjects and entitites were responsible for the actions alleged by the journalists. The reports in "A1”, “Vreme” and “Špic“ uncovered the identity of the driver, and offered contents without clear note who was the source of information on the alleged lay-offs at "MPM".58 The above were the two most serious deviations from the principles of professional reporting. In this case, there was no reaction by the competent institutions that would allow for a check of allegations presented by “A1”, “Vreme” and “Špic“59, and the topic was not covered by the other media. The only instance of continuous coverage of the matter in the media was registered on December 24-25, 2010.60

57 December 18, 2010. 58 „Yesterday, Srđan Kerim fired about ten employees from MPM’s administration, ‘Špic' learns“, Špic, December 21, 2010. 59 „The state is engulfed with silence on the scandal at WAZ corporation. The Office for Prevention of Money Laundering doesn’t comment anything. All information were considered confidential, including the information if they sent the document of the Hungarian authorities on the attempt to transport €750 thousand to the Ministry of Interior”, A1, December 14, 2010. 60 After the period covered by this analysis, the media noted, on December 25, the announcement that SDSM intends to file criminal charges against the minister of interior: „The first official charges are filed against Minister of Interior Gordana Jankulovska, for covering and failure to take action on reported offense of money laundering in the case of the €750,000 found with the MPM’s driver – Crvenkovski said”, Dnevnik, December 25, 2010.

23 5. CONCLUSIONS “A lie is best hidden between two truths”61 5.1. The general conclusion is that there were serious violations of the principles of objective and truthful informing of the public, the fundamental professional principles of the information media. Instead of purely reporting the cases, the media largely chose premeditated criticism and advocacy, using a wide spectrum of rhetoric devices and manipulation techniques. The journalists frequently violated the rules that prescribe that unchecked and false, bent and misleading information should not be published. The most common method of violation of professional information standards was the so- called “framing”, i.e. purposeful and selective coverage of separate aspects of events and involved actors. While the media critical of the journalists of A1, and to some extent Vreme and Špic, focused on the owner of the TV broadcaster and the role played by the journalists during the inspection process, they almost completely missed the other relevant aspects related to the role of the Police officers, their communication with the press and the general public, alleged use of excessive force, possible roles and influence that various political entities had on the events, etc. Information coming from official sources is presented. On the other hand, the coverage in A1, Vreme and Špic made no mention of the relations of the inspected companies with their own media or with the owner of A1 television, the money found by the police, etc. This is just a segment of the mosaic of a huge body of contents that reflect the intentional selective approach to the coverage of events. The missing context and aspects are partly covered with pure transmission model of information and presentation of the views of involved actors without critical or analytic approach to the sources of information. Also, the aspects not mentioned in the reports are considered irrelevant, and the attention of the public is focused in other direction. It has to be noted that the key role in the efficient "framing" efforts and the omission of complete coverage is played by the involved actors, who chose selective approach in their media appearance, usually in favour of those media that share their views and support their side in the given case. What we have here is a segregation into “friendly” and “enemy” media, in order to ensure control of flow of information, leading to so-called “monopolisation” or “oligopolisation” of information, at the expense of public interest and freedom of information. The framing is also evident in the choice of commentaries given by foreign sources or collected through “vox-pop” interviews with members of the general public that will be aired or published.62

61 Quote by Deep Throat, character in the “X Files” TV series. 62 During the events, on November 25, 2011, a statement by the Spokesperson on the police presence was published by MIA, and later by majority of TV services, including A1 TV. Representatives of two of the three involved institutions (UJP and MVR) addressed the public on Sitel, Kanal 5 and MTV1. The Minister of Interior gave interviews to MTV1 and Kanal 5 during the period covered by this analysis. A representatives of the financial police appeared in a debate programme on MTV1. The owner of A1 TV, Ramkovski, gave interviews to A1 and Alsat. Aleksandar Čomovski from A1 TV participate in a debate programme aired by Kanal 5 TV, and the regular debate programe „Nie“ (We) on Sitel was cancelled (Vreme, November 30, 2010: „The 'Nie' Magazine wasn’t aired in its regular weekly slot on Sitel TV, after the author Dragan Antonovski informed his guest at the last moment that the programme was cancelled, allegedly, for technical reasons. The programme was supposed to discuss the situation of Macedonian journalism on the eve of the coming convention of the AJM. One of the planned guests was Mladen Čadikovski, editor at A1. While Antonovski says the reasons for the cancellation were technical, Čadikovski says it was unusual to cancell a programme at the last possible moment and that this was a classic example of censorship after the raid of A1 by the Police last Thursday). The management of communication channels used to present this topic to the public was evident. During the debate and the actual events, the involved actors worked closely with editors and journalists and presented their messages exclusively through friendly media.

24 The media largely focused on a single segment and completely neglected those aspects that didn’t make it into the framework of their editorial interpretation of events. This is a powerful method when used with visual materials and information that is repeated following a strict plan63. Linked to the framing is the “intensification of selective messages and information”, i.e. inclination to frequently broadcast and publish comprehensive information and contents already selected through framing, intended to attack some of the involved actors or the media on the opposite side64. In the intensive repetition and the total redirection of the attention of the audience, the media apply techniques of conviction that are much closer to advertising than to informative contents. It is that combination of selective and intensive approaches that make the information on the events and developments differ so much.

5.2 Another conclusion is that the articles and news stories don’t make the distinction between facts and commentary.65 The analysis also registered high involvement of various sources of information, which fit well in the rhetoric strategy of "fake" or "formal balance", allowing the media to meet the formal requirements of objective information through presentation of information from different actors, which are then, through application of a variety of techniques, used skilfully to redirect the viewers and readers towards the preferred interpretations and conclusions. Most commonly used technique, in that context, is commenting as direct means to focus the interpretation of reported information. The techniques of false association, naming, logical accentuation, changes in gesticulation, mimics, variations of tonality of speech and other linguistic and semiotic instruments are also used. The use of journalistic slang, strong metaphores, stereotypes that are common part of the "language of the media", often supported with information of suspect quality, result in cognitive and emotional manipulation of the audiences.66 The over-dramatisation, incitement of fear67 also proved frequently used methods for redirection of public attention. We also noted an intentional contextualisation effort, putting the information in a wider context, as seen necessary by editors and journalists (for example, “new strong blow against the shaky democratic ambience in the country”68), without listing of related information. That was especially the case with electronic media, the so-called “fast media”, where viewers have greater difficulty to critically perceive and analyse the contents as they are broadcast. The dynamic nature of the work doesn't relieve the journalists from their responsibility for the published information of this type. The incitement of irrational fears was registered in a number of articles and reports. The journalists didn’t manage to avoid the conflicts of interest

63 A compilation of footage recorded on November 11, in the form of video spot, were broadcast in prime time slots and in the news, several times a day, on A1 TV. 64 One excepttion of this dominant practice was the over-the-phone live interview with MVR Spokesman Ivo Kotevski, in A1’s live broadcast on November 25, 2010. The interview, conducted in a tense atmosphere, was interrupted by the anchor in A1’s studio. Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ms_7eJDYNiA&feature=player_embedded 65 For example, MTV1: “A number of actors were stationed at the main entrance, to push and provoke the Police, and when that failed, a new order arrived – act as if you were beaten”. 66 А1, November 25, 2010: „ At this moment, A1 resembles a mini military base where birds are not allowed to fly over without presenting ID first, but, what I want to say is that freedom of movement for journalists and employees of A1 TV can't be restricted. I don't know what could be the reason for this “. 67 А1: “The Government is holding the media as hostages”; “The Government brought the democracy in Macedonia down to its knees”. 68 А1, November 26, 2010.

25 when reporting on businesses, interest groups, institutions, and the like, with which they were personally involved. In spite of their duty to serve the interests of the public and the good reputation of journalism, they frequently violated the norms of professional and impartial reporting. The rules of attribution of sources of information were met, in most general sense of the word, and the formal balance was observed by all media covered by this analysis. The exceptions mostly refer to situations in which unnamed and vaguely identified sources (for example: we learn, our sources say, unofficially, unnamed sources, sources in the Police, sources close to the investigation, etc.) were used by the media to report, in their view, exclusive information. Therefore, the public can't determine the validity and veracity of the contents, which could have been planned and intentional speculations. Naturally, they have the power to refocus interpretation and create opinions, and they greatly influence the diminished transparency of information. Their role, apparently, is not to primarily inform, but to convince the general public. The journalists also engaged in pejorative comments69 and malicious involvement70 in the events, using a variety of verbal and graphic71 material. The use of stereotypes in the effort to mislead the public was common occurence. The reports on events and developments that are subject to ongoing investigations or pending court rulings, which should have been freed from subjective and tendentious reporting and comments, were still frequently subjected to comments and speculations.72 The names and identity of suspects were publicly released by several media outlets73. Thus, through violation of human and professional dignity of the suspects and many other involved actors, the media managed to trample their own dignity and seriously undermine the trust of the audience.

69 For example: “The Grocer on Trial”, Večer, November 30, 2010. 70 Nova Makedonija, November 27, 2010: “legitimate operation turned into a circus“; Sitel, November 26, 2010: „(Pero Nakov Street) the location in which the people from A1 turned the inspection by the competent institutions into a circus“. 71 The front-page of „Večer“ of November 27 carried a photo of the owner of A1, Velija Ramkovski, picking his nose (our note). 72 For example, Kanal 5, November 27, 2010: „At least 20 people are involved in the pyramid scheme of six companies located on Pero Nakov bb“. 73 For example, Sitel TV news, November 27, 2010: „Yesterday, MVR announced the information that €104,000 were found in the home of the director of “Plus Production” company, the publisher of the newspapers controlled by the owner of A1, Velija Ramkovski. Gj.Dž., from the borough of Čair, entered a joint business with Ramkovski in 2008. Experts for financial crime comment that Ramkovski often made such moves, to hide the evidence for concentration of media power, which is illegal“. Furthermore, on December 25, „Večer“ daily published the complete list of suspects.

26