Media Monitoring Report
CeSID Report on Monitoring of Media Coverage of Pre-elections Campaign in the period between September 2nd and 22nd, 2002.
The monitoring encompassed the following media:
PRINTED: Politika, Blic, Vecernje novosti, Danas and Nacional
ELECTRONIC: RTS (Daily News 2 - TV Belgrade, "Political polygon"/"Electoral Chronicle"), Radio Belgrade 1 (News of the Day and " Electoral Chronicle"), Studio B (News at 19:00) and BK TV (“Telefakt” at 18:55)
CAMPAIGN DIRTY – MEDIA “WASHED UP”
During the three-weeks monitoring of the media coverage of pre-elections campaign for Serbian presidential elections, the following characteristics of the media behaviour have become apparent:
How?
I Publicity given to the pre-elections campaign – bellow average.
II Placement of information – within the margins of decency.
III Significance – adequate to the event.
IV Effect – abandoning the actors, relativism of tensions and “hot” speech. Protecting the public from the language “contamination” that was (again expectedly) abundantly present in the discourse of contestants.
Good news on gradual turning to professionalism: Campaign of presidential candidates was not the news of the day! It was one of the news only.
I The model that (with rare exceptions) has been persistently and tacitly observed was:
Facts -> objectivism -> equidistance vs. favouritism -> mediation without participation -> blunt avoidance of comments -> “flat” tone (neutralism)
II The media have done what they “had to do” and what has been their professional and social function: they have plainly reported on politicians’ tours: who - where - when – how - what. Everything was packed up in respective sections and blocks, without “spilling out”. That probably explains the lack of absence of (already usual) “noise” about “strict control” and “media manipulation” coming from almost all sides of political spectre, which have never been less justified and therefore unsuccessful. Media have “betrayed the expectations” of those actors who expected the background support, i.e. the eternal repetition of the same: by cheering, creators of public opinion created the “opinion creatures”, convenient for demagogic “kneading” in various political kitchens. In this sense, particularly characteristic was the behaviour of the state controlled electronic media in their information programmes:
1. Persistent, almost strict observance of the adopted guidelines for representation of presidential candidates (a bit of space for everyone, not too much space for anyone). However, the equidistance, or equality does not mean the equal rights.
2. Misplacement, careful wrapping, tucking and particularly dislocation of campaign into the special programmes.
The (monitored) media that have not been state-controlled, had somehow more convenient position: emancipated from the “restriction of the agreed rules” they could have allowed themselves a certain “inclination”, thus without passionate cheering and enthusiastic participation even such (occasionally obvious) “inclination” resulted only in a mild support for one or the other political option.
III This time, the media have skilfully avoided the trap of “historic” and “fatal” significance and, subsequently, the exaggeration of the forthcoming elections, in spite of the quite obvious and direct signalling from the confronted political camps to act in that respect. Consequently, to a great extent, they have avoided the overdramatic presentation of political conflicts and inciting of tensions and passions among the public, so typical for the not so distant past.
IV Moderateness, “non-alignment” and balance of most of the media (retreating from the role of direct political factor) left the immediate participators between wind and water of the open public bay and the boomerang effects of their own discourse. The media have being diligently recording their discursive ranges and failures, mostly with no reactions whatsoever, leaving the burden of this political baggage to its authentic creators. By doing it, they have contributed to the creation of a valuable original materials for the more thorough analyses of the (unchanged) political speech and the prevailing political culture.
Why?
The optimistic evaluation might be: after the (multi) decennial downfall of the profession, its members are in the phase of “free levitation”, during which they seek some solid basis which no longer (exclusively and indisputably) may be found in the proverbial service to the ‘(un)certain’ political conjecture. Indisputably, this (objectivism) is the necessary prerequisite for professionalism and emancipation from the dictate of centres of political power. Is it also a sufficient requirement for final autonomy and presentation to the public? A sufficient requirement for objectivity?
The realistic evaluation: this was a case of jumpstart before the (expected) new changing of tracks, that will follow once one of the presently confronted options prevails; the alert of, above all, the editors teams before the new dealing of cards.
|
