NGO INFO-CENTRE IT IS TIME FOR EU! – MEDIA MONITORING REPORT No. 2 (May – July 2009) SKOPJE, SEPTEMBER 2009 PROJECT: IT IS TIME FOR EU! MEDIA MONITORING NGO Infocentre: Nikola Trimpare 18-1/5, 1000 Skopje; Phone/Fax: (02) 3233 560, 3216 690; [email protected], www.nvoinfocentar.org.mk SECOND REPORT, MAY-JULY 2009 FINANCIAL SUPPORT: This publication is supported by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID’s) Civil Society Strengthening Project, implemented by the Institute for Sustainable Communities (ISC). The opinions expressed herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Institute for Sustainable Communities (ISC) or United States Agency for International Development (USAID). Furthermore, the mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 4 I. QUANTITATIVE OVERVIEW 5 II QUALITY ANALYSIS 6 1. THE NAME DISPUTE 6 1.1 WITH REFERENDUM TO "SENSIBLE" COMPROMISE 6 1.2 URGENT SOLUTION FOR THE NAME DISPUTE 7 1.3 HOW TO GET EU ENTANGLED IN THIS STEW? 7 1.4 CONFUSING FOREIGN POLICIES 8 2. VISA LIBERALISATION 9 2.1. POLITICIANS DISCOVER THE PROCEDURE 9 2.2. MACEDONIA HELD HOSTAGE BY FOREIGN INTERESTS? 10 2.3. MACEDONIA MISSES ANOTHER CHANCE TO DEMONSTRATE LEADERSHIP 11 2.4. MINI-SCHENGEN AREA – THAT IS THE QUESTION! 12 2.5. EXPERT OPINIONS COME TO ASSISTANCE! 12 3. AMBASSADOR FOUERE’S MANDATE 13 4. EUROPEAN ELECTIONS 14 5. TOPICS RELATED TO BENCHMARKS 14 5.1. DISPUTE WITH EVN THREATENS EU INTEGRATIONS 14 5.2. JUDICIARY – WE IMPLEMENT REFORMS? 15 5.3. PROFESSIONAL AND (A)POLITICAL PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 15 5.4 MEDIA 16 5.5 BOCEVSKI'S RESIGNATION 17 6. LEARNING THROUGH MISTAKES! 17 III CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 19 It is Time for EU! – Media Monitoring 3 NGO Info-centre, September 2009 INTRODUCTION The NGO Infocentre, in cooperation with the Macedonian Centre for European Training (MCET), implement a programme for monitoring of media coverage and treatment of European integration processes in Macedonia, under the auspices of the "It Is Time for EU" project, supported by the Institute for Sustainable Communities (ISC) and the Foundation Open Society Institute Macedonia. This report covers the period May-July 2009 (the monitoring covers the Mondays’ and Thursdays’ programmes of television broadcasters; and Tuesdays’ and Fridays’ reporting in the daily newspapers). The analyses includes the coverage in seven daily newspapers (Utrinski vesnik; Dnevnik; Vest; Večer; Vreme; Nova Makedonaija and Spic) 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) 1. The monitoring doesn't include the media in the languages of non-majority communities because of the limited financial and human resources. The methodology shows the quality of the published information from the aspect of journalistic standards, whether the media/journalists used named sources, whether they consulted all stakeholders, the genres they used, the dominating genres, the treatment of facts and arguments. The methodology also allows an analysis of the contents of the information on the European integrations presented not just by the media, but also by the Government, the political parties and the expert community. This monitoring programme analyzed the levels of understanding of the European Union and European integration processes, the use of terminology and language. 1 Central news programmes: А1 TV – 19:00 hours, Kanal 5 TV – 19:30 hours, Sitel TV – 18:00 hours, Telma TV – 18:30 h, MTV1 – 19:30 h, Alpha TV – 17:30 h and Alsat TV – 22:30 hours. It is Time for EU! – Media Monitoring 4 NGO Info-centre, September 2009 I. QUANTITATIVE OVERVIEW Total number of published and aired articles - 342. Number of articles in the print media - 172 (50.2%): • „Utrinski vesnik“ - 37 (11%); • „Nova Makedonija“ - 35 (10%); • „Večer“ - 28 (8%); • „Špic“ - 27 (8%); • „Vreme“ - 17 (5%); • „Dnevnik“ - 14 (4%); • „Vest“ - 14 (4%); Number of articles in broadcast media - 170 (49.8%): • MTV1 – 37 (11%); • Kanal 5 TV – 29 (9%); • Sitel TV – 26 (8%); • A1 TV – 25 (7%) • Alsat M TV – 21 (6%); • Alpha TV - 18 (5%); • Telma TV – 14 (4%); In terms of the used genres, the break-down is as follows: • Reports – 287 (84%) • Statements – 24 (7%) • Commentary/Reports – 10 (3%) • Interviews - 7 (3%) • Commentaries – 6 (2%) • Analyses – 5 (1%) • News – 3 (1%). The coverage of the European integration processes was dominated by five topics: the name dispute with Greece; visa liberalisation; the mandate of EU Ambassador Erwan Fouere; Elections for the European Parliament; topics related to the benchmarks and the expansion of the European Union, including the resignation of Ivica Bocevski, Deputy Vice-President of the Government charged with the European Integration processes. The monitoring aims to determine if the citizens of the Republic of Macedonia have on offer sufficient (in terms of both quantity and quality) information on European integration processes in the country to be able to create their own views and make informed decisions. This report covers the five dominant topics separately, to determine what citizens learned and weren’t able to learn on the given topic. It is Time for EU! – Media Monitoring 5 NGO Info-centre, September 2009 II QUALITY ANALYSIS 1. THE NAME DISPUTE The dispute over the name of the Republic of Macedonia again dominated the coverage in the print and electronic media during the period covered by this report. The statements by Government officials dominated the coverage, and a bit of change in that trend was the increased presence of statements given by government representatives from the other countries in the region and EU, and statements by representatives of the European Parliament and European Commission. In the majority of media reports, there was notable absence of in-depth analysis of this extremely sensitive and significant issue. Judging from the reports and stories, it could be concluded that the journalists far too often have to rely solely on official statements by political figures, while other information remain off limits to the public and are treated confidential. 1.1 With Referendum to "Sensible" Compromise Unlike the previous period covered under this monitoring programme, this time there was emphasized readyness by Government representatives to intensify the negotiations and reach “sensible” compromise to accept a name that is in accordance with the Constitution. In that context, the media carried the statement by Macedonian negotiator Zoran Jolevski, given before the meeting in Geneva, who emphasized: „Macedonia is prepared to resolve the dispute, but the solution shouldn't be in collision with the Constitution- our sources say. It means that Macedonia wants, as a sovereign state, to regulate its relations with third countries and that there will be no violation of the principle of self-determination”.2 Foreign minister Antonio Milošoski, said: “We have approached the dialogue constructively and we expect from Greece to demonstrate the same constructive approach to move the process forward”.3 President Gjorge Ivanov also maintained that the naming dispute is primarily a Greek problem. “Macedonia has no other option but to be constructive in the negotiations on the problem Greece has with our name. The message we send to our friends is that Macedonia wants to leave this problem behind and continue with the integration processes, which are enough of a challenge even without political obstacles”.4 PM Gruevski remained most reserved in his statements which are dominated by a cloud of secrecy regarding the state's strategy how to approach the dispute and the firm determination of the Government to organize a referendum on the name: “We have made a decision on that issue. We have said that, when the moment comes, the proposed solution for the problem of the name will be taken to a referendum and the citizens would decide whether to accept it. We want a referendum the moment we have a proposal that would be, in the least, acceptable to Greece. That is the first requirement, the proposal has to be acceptable to Greece, and the second is to see if it will be acceptable to the citizens of the Republic of Macedonia”5. The Government, the President of the Republic and the other relevant institutions failed to provide enough information on two aspects of the dispute: (1) what solution to the naming dispute would be acceptable to the state leadership, meeting the requirements of constitutionality and being a "sensible" compromise; and (2) what is the political rationale, what is the legal procedure and the legitimacy of the proposed referendum on the name. In that regard, we registered the following analysis: „If the Government does make that decision (the sensible compromise), it will mean that the Government, depending on the political situation, will be able to swim skilfully in any occasion and use the precedent to call for a referendum on any given issue. The idea is that, if the compromise is confirmed in a 2 Dnevnik, June 23, 2009 3 Nova Makedonija, June 26, 2009 4 Nova Makedonija, June 26, 2009 5 Dnevnik, June 23, 2009 It is Time for EU! – Media Monitoring 6 NGO Info-centre, September 2009 referendum, the decision carries more weight because the people decided so on its free will. That may be the reason for the warnings of the international community that the eventual compromise ought to be a political decision, to avoid setting the situation in concrete on our own".6 1.2 Urgent Solution for the Name Dispute The media reported the intensive activities of Macedonian political leadership abroad, the visits and statements by representatives of states in the region and EU member-states, that used every possibility to point out that the naming dispute has to be resolved as soon as possible and the Macedonia should refrain from any provocations towards Greece.