Post-Soviet Media Law & Policy Newsletter

Issue 38     Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law     July 15, 1997 

CZECH REPUBLIC CROATIA HUNGARY
I.  Daily Variety reported, in a study by Elizabeth Guider and John Nadler, the long-awaited news on the award of private television licensing in Hungary.
II.  CME, which is the major owner of the successful Nova Channel in Prague, responded to the news with the following comment.
SLOVAKIA YUGOSLAVIA
CZECH REPUBLIC

I.  Legislation in Commericals.

By Normandy Madden

    Following fierce debate, the Czech Parliament has voted not to reduce the amount of time that public broadcaster Czech Television can run commercials.
    The vote, held in late May, followed attempts by Prime Minister Vaclav Klaus’ conservative party to reduce the amount of advertising on public TV from 1% of total airtime to 0.2% and to effect a total ban on primetime advertising.
    The Parliament did vote, however, to increase subscription fees the TV usertax from $1.60 to $2.40 per month. Both proposals will be voted on by the Czech Senate, the upper house, in mid-June, where it is expected to pass easily.
    The Czech Association of Advertising Agencies (ARA) ran ads in four national dailies the day before the vote, asking Parliament not to reduce advertising. Association vp Jiri Mikes said the ads were necessary because “a reduction in advertising allowed on CT would harm the competitive environment in TV broadcasting” by adding to TV Nova’s dominant position.
    The nation’s only major private broadcaster, TV Nova, owned by U.S.-backed Central European Media Enterprises (CME), maintains a market share of about 65% and takes in more than 70% of the total spending that goes into TV advertising.
    Jan Dobes, managing director of IP Prague, which sells advertising for CT, said of the vote, “This is great news for us and for Czech Television. But it also protects the advertisers against TV Nova becoming an absolute monopoly.”
    Czech Television earns about $25 million annually from advertising, according to the network’s director-general Ivo Mathe. Once the increase in subscription fees goes into effect, the public broadcaster will see its earnings from that source rise to $93 million annually. Since CT also takes in revenue from foreign programming sales, publishing, merchandising and other sources, the station’s total income for this year is expected to be about $123 million.
    TV Nova, meanwhile, earned more than $100 million from advertising in 1996, according to CME.
    TV Nova’s director-general Vladimir Zelezny has lobbied hard for advertising restrictions on CT.
    “I have to make a profit on a real budget, but Czech TV has funding from advertising and subscription fees and they still don’t have to make a profit. This creates an unfair situation for private broadcasters,” Zelezny said earlier this year.

Hollywood Reporter, June 3, 1997

II.  Havel signs bill strengthening suppor for public channel.

    President Vaclav Havel has somewhat thrown in doubt the sole role he has in approving a law, commercial television Nova director Vladimir Zelezny said today.
    He was reacting to Havel’s statement, before he signed a law on radio and television broadcasting on June 18, that he would not like to see the day when Nova would be the only medium providing the public with information on developments in the world.
    Nova has by far the highest viewership, but many criticise it for pandering to it’s vewiers.
    The new law was approved by the Chamber of Deputies on May 23 and by the Senate on June 9. It raises TV fees from 50 to 75 crowns which Zelezny said came at a time when “the whole country is tightening belts and public corporations [are reducing] their financial costs.”
    The presidential signature on a law is a sort of constitutional guarantee of the executive power against legislators, which is to prevent low-quality legislation from being passed.
    “We have a democratically elected president and his duty is to see to it that the law which he signs is faultless. The President himself conceded that the law contained a flaw and yet he signed it more or less in order to punish Nova or to prevent it from being as successful as it is,” Zelezny said.
    Before he put his signature on it, Havel said he would sign it even though it contained “numerous points” which were controversial from the legislative point of view. He did not specify.
    Zelezny had been pushing for the new legislation to radically reduce the advertising space of the Czech Television, a public corporation. The new space would be filled in by Nova.

CTK National News Wire, June 21,1997

III.  Nova TV cleared of misconduct, by Normandy Madden.

    Nova TV, the private television broadcaster majority owned by Ronald Lauder’s Central European Media Enterprises, has been cleared of alleged misconduct, a Czech official confirmed in early June.
    The broadcaster was absolved by the Council for Radio and Television Broadcasting following claims by some council members that Nova TV was technically broadcasting without a license.
    There were also complaints about the station’s programming, as the original proposal for the license included demands for educational and cultural content. Nova TV largely broadcasts foreign films and serials.
    The council often publicly criticized Nova’s complicated setup. Following a public tender, a license was granted to Central European Television in 1993 for CET-21, a joint venture by six Czechs that included Nova TV director general Vladimir Zelezny. While CET-21 officially holds the license used to operate Nova TV, the station is managed by a separate company, Czech Independent Television (CNTS). CME controls a 91.2% voting interest and a 93.2% economic interest in CNTS; the remainder is held by CET-21.
    CME management claim that Nova TV was organized along guidelines provided by the council members themselves. “We have been asked three times to make changes in the organization structure of Nova TV and we have complied every time,” said a company spokesman Monday.
    Last year Nova TV produced net revenue of $109 million on a $54.5 million operating budget and controls nearly 70% of the Czech TV market.

Hollywood Reporter, June 10, 1997

IV.  Earlier story on Nova ownership and control dispute.

    In mid-May, the Chamber of Deputies rejected a proposal made by opposition parties for the creation of an investigative commission to examine the circumstances surrounding the licencing of the CET 21 company. 
    The proposal was submitted by the far-right Republicans (SPR-RSC) and the Communists (KSCM).
    CET 21 is a company designed to run the independent television station Nova.
    The Chamber did however accept a ruling that its media commission submit information on how the licence was granted and on the basis on which Television Nova is able to broadcast.
    At the suggestion of main opposition Social Democrat (CSSD) deputy Pavel Dostal, 100 deputies supported the resolution out of 173 deputies present. Dostal rejected the demand for the creation of a commission by Dalibor Matulka (KSCM) and Josef Krejsa, although he conceded that there could be “many relevant and rational things” in their doubts about the granting of the licence.
    Dostal proposed that the Chamber turn the case over to the Chamber’s media commission as there were fears that the Chamber could be “buried” by investigative commissions. The Chamber has already set several investigative commissions, including ones on the Poldi Kladno steel company privatisation and the collapse of Kreditni Banka Plzen (KrB).
    Dostal’s proposal was supported by an overwhelming majority of senior coalition Civic Democratic (ODS) deputies who had otherwise emphatically rejected the creation of an investigative commission. 
    Matulka called the acceptance of the resolution unsatisfactory. He said the only thing which could investigate the whole affair and initiate an amendment to the imperfect law would be a special Chamber commission. The Radio and Television Broadcasting Council, which has been leading proceedings in the granting of the licence since last year, does not have sufficient power to cast light on the affair, Matulka said.
    Media commission member Martin Priban (ODS) admitted that the commission would request information on the circumstances surrounding the granting of the licence from the Radio and Television Broadcasting Council on the basis of the approval of Dostal’s proposal.
    Matulka warned that doubts about the granting of the licence arose, above all, from the fact that the foreign company Central European Media Enterprises (CME) has a dominant influence on its holder, CET 21, while the broadcasting itself is allegedly operated by the Czech Independent Television Company (CNTS).
    CME owns 93.2 percent of CNTS, which in turn controls Nova, while Nova has bought a 60 percent stake in CET 21.
    “I think it’s necessary to clarify whether the factual transfer of the national channel into foreign hands and the ongoing ownership transfers were in keeping with Czech law and licencing conditions,” stated Matulka. 
    The co-author of the intiative to create an investigative commission, which was rejected not only by the coalition, but also by a part of the CSSD, Josef Krejsa (SPR-RSC) called the granting of the licence to CET 21 a sophisticated fraud by the former boardcasting council and especially its then chairman Daniel Korte. Krejsa alleged that Korte had close links with the foreign owners of CME, which could lead to the misuse of public office.
    Krejsa also accused Korte of breaking the broadcasting law which prohibits council members from holding political party office. 
    “Korte himself admitted to council members that he participated in the assembly of the (junior coalition Civic Democratic Alliance) ODA and was the only who voted against the election of (Jan) Kalvoda to the ODA chairmanship,” said Krejsa, adding that the investigation into the licencing of CET 21 should also look into the “privatising links of the ODA.”
 Krejsa said Korte also had a financial interest in the affair when he announced that Korte’s involvement in the privatisation of F1 after he left the council should also be examined “from the point of view of revenues.”

CTK National News Wire, May 16, 1997

CROATIA

I.  President says he would support private TV stations.

    President Franjo Tudjman of Croatia, interviewed by Croatian TV on 11th June, was asked, among other things, whether he would support the development o fprivate TV stations in the country alongside Croatian state TV. He replied: “Yes, I would. But not if they served foreign interests. Only if they served the interests of the Croatian people. Naturally, they should at the same timetake account of European and world conditions. We should not deceive ourselves. I have sufficient experience. Some tell me that the state should not interfere in economic questions. There is no prime minister or president who has not sent me notes saying, verbally or in writing, let us buy this or that, etc. When they sought to interview me—including the most prestigious of your colleagues from world famous companies—they told me in advance: you will be asked about this or that, etc. So democracy—yes; responsibility—yes; but also good sense in the interests of our own freedom and in the interests of our own people and state.”

Croatian TV satellite service, Zagreb, June 11, 1997

HUNGARY

I.  Daily Variety reported, in a study by Elizabeth Guider and John Nadler, the long-awaited news on the award of private television licensing in Hungary.

    Two long-awaited private broadcast licenses in Hungary have finally been awarded.
    The winner of the coveted first channel license is a consortium led by feisty satcaster Scandinavian Broadcasting System (SBS), which beat out its main Euro rival, Central European Media Enterprises (CME). SBS’ partners are the Hungarian production company MTM and the German producer-distribbery TeleMunchen. 
    A consortium led by the powerful combo of Luxembourg-based CLT and Germany’s Bertelsmann subsidiary Ufa picked off the second license, which does not yet cover as much of the country as the first. Its local partner is the Magyar telco Matav; other backers include British media conglom Pearson. There are strong economic and trade ties between Germany and Hungary. 
    CME, which is backed by cosmetics-turned-media kingpin Ronald Lauder and operates other stations in the Czech Republic, Poland and Romania, also made a failed bid for the second license. It too had local partners in its bid.
    The announcement was made Monday by Hungary’s national radio and television board (ORTT), and brings to an end seven years of political in-fighting that has left Hungary’s media privatization trailing behind other former communist countries. Both Poland and the Czech Republic already have commercial national TV stations.
    ORTT spokesman Gyorgy Lovas said Monday in Budapest: “The decision was unanimous but for one abstention,” adding that the bids had been “very close.”
    The 10-year licenses for two national commercial TV channels were offered for 8 billion forints, ($ 42 million) plus taxes and were payable three years in advance.
    SBS chairman-CEO Harry Sloan said in a statement Monday: “The award of the first private license in Hungary is an important accomplishment for SBS and marks a milestone in our expansion from western to central Europe.
    “We already have in place the management, financial and programming resources to support our consortium’s efforts, and currently have no plans to access the capital markets,” Sloan added. (SBS, which went public four years ago, has a major shareholder in Disney/ABC.)
    The ORTT decision to bypass CME, once considered a favorite to win a license, shocked the local investment community. Sources say CME recently fell into disfavor with the media and political leadership in Budapest. 
    Insiders suggested that CME’s frontman in Hungary, famed local broadcaster Gyorgy Balo, was overly assertive in his dealings with ORTT and the government. “I think Balo overplayed his cards,” a well-placed source told Daily Variety.
    Other analysts argue that CME’s presence in other markets in central Europe was the chief reason for its failure.

Daily Varitey, July 1, 1997

II.  CME, which is the major owner of the successful Nova Channel in Prague, responded to the news with the following comment.

    Responding to numerous press and other inquiries, MKTV (IRISZ TV) today expressed strong objections to Hungary’s National Radio and Television Board (ORTTT) award of television licenses following a competition for privatization of two nationwide terrestrial channels. According to information available to CME aria its Hungarian partners, there are strong indications that the evaluation process may not have properly followed the procedures outlined in the Hungarian Media Law.
    Leonard M. Fertig, President and Chief Executive Officer of CME stated: “We are greatly disappointed by a process in which the group that follows the law and submits the highest bid, reputed to be three to four billion forints higher than either competitor, loses the license competition when the ORTT regulations stated that the most heavily weighted factor in the bidding process would be the amount of money bid. Forty percent of all IRISZ TV’s programming was to be Hungarian-produced. The station also planned to offer the best independent news, entertainment and sports programming available from Europe and around the world, together with the highest level of Hungarian production. We regret that the Hungarian people have been deprived of the opportunity to enjoy these shows.”
    Gyorgy Balo, Chief Executive of IRISZ TV, added: “The ORTT acknowledged that IRISZ TV was ranked number one in the competition for one of the channels and ranked number two in the case of the other channel. After the second round of bidding, according to a public declaration by the ORTT officials, LRISZ TV’s concession fee offer was over three billion forints more for one channel, and over four billion forints more for the other channel. Providing that the ORTT followed its own procedures, it seems mathematically impossible for us to lose both bids.”
    Intercom’s Andrew Vajna said: “I am very disappointed, after hearing from so many people about how impressive our bid was, and that in the end it has been so blatantly disregarded.” 
    The IRISZ TV partners are examining the legal and operating options available to it with respect to the ORTT’s decision. IRISZ TV’s partners include DDTV, headed by Gyorgy B Rio, a Hungarian media expert who has been associated with CME since it began participating in the bidding process in 1995; Intercom, the largest film and video distributor, and cinema operator in Hungary owned by Andrew G. Vajna, and MEDIA COM, a privately owned company with share holdings in the mobile telephone company Pannon GSM, as well as a television production business.
    CME has invested in television stations in the Czech Republic, Germany, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Ukraine reaching more than 90 million people. Its operations in the Czech Republic, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia command a leading audience share. CME is a Bermuda-based company traded on the Nasdaq National Market in the U.S.

M2 Presswire, July 4, 1997

SLOVAKIA

I.  Slovak Radio head resigns after “political pressures.”

    Jan Tuzinsky, central director of Slovak Radio, resigned from his post June 3. This was confirmed to the daily ‘Praca’ by a source who did not wish to be named.
    We did not succeed in reaching the central director at the Slovak Radio Secretariat yesterday. In December 1994 Jan Tuzinsky replaced Vladimir Stefko, who now holds the post of the Slovak president’s spokesman, as a Movement for a Democratic Slovakia [HZDS] candidate. In radio circles, there has been talk for some time about Tuzinsky possibly being replaced because of his “excessive softness.” Information of this kind from Slovak Radio insiders has until now never been confirmed, however, including reports that Jan Tuzinsky had already twice offered his resignation to the minister of culture, following political pressures. TASR Director-General Dusan Kleiman or government spokeswoman Ludmila Bulakova were being considered for Tuzinsky’s post. However, the favourite candidate for the post of Slovak Radio central director, according to our sources, is Dusan D. Kerny, a Slovak Television [STV] employee and former TASR chief editor.
    [Slovak radio on 4th June reported that Tuzinsky would leave his post on 1st July.]

Praca, June 4, 1997

YUGOSLAVIA

I.  Foreign assistance for media in Serbia.

    US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright’s announcement of an additional five-million-dollar assistance aimed at backing the “development of democracy and the freedom of the press” in Serbia has been interpreted by the editors of self-proclaimed “independent and free” media as the continuation of assistance which they have received from the West so far. 
Funds from USA
    In a statement to ‘Dnevni Telegraf’, ‘Vreme’ editor in chief Dragoljub Zarkovic said that the weekly had “so far had no experience with US assistance,” but that it was receiving EU assistance that had amounted to DM57,000 in 1996. 
    Head of the Association of Independent Electronic Trade Unions and Radio B92 Editor In Chief Veran Matic did not wish to speak about the received EU assistance, saying that this was “not a thing to be discussed.”
    He “did not know” the amount which the association or Radio B92 would get and said that “as far as he knows” this would probably be known “after a competition and registration of projects.”
    According to ‘Dnevni Telegraf’, Monitor acting director Milka Tadic said a State Department agency had told her that assistance would be directed to both Serbia and Montenegro, that it would be distributed through offices to be opened in Belgrade and possibly Podgorica and that most of the funds would go to electronic media.
    Due to much work during Albright’s visit, the US embassy still has no systematized information about the recipients of the assistance and criteria according to which it would be granted. 
    About 1,200 new media have been launched in Yugoslavia since 1992, all of them private, mixed or in some other kind of ownership. 
    According to the press, the Independent Association of Journalists of Serbia admitted that it had no information about foreign financial assistance and that private newspapers did not want to make such information public, saying these figures were confidential. 
    According to available information, in 1994 the Soros Fund assisted 12 weeklies and biweeklies, eight monthly newspapers, two dailies, youth and children’s press and radio and TV stations. 
Funds from EU
    The International Federation of Journalists started financing these media later on and in 1996 a Greek newspaper published a list of Yugoslav media which had received EU assistance through the Commissioner Hans Van den Broek’s bureau since 1994. 
    According to the information, ‘Vreme’ and the Beta news agency received 80,000 ECUs each, Studio B 150,000 ECUs, ‘Nin’ 75,000 ECUs, ’ Zeri’ 25,000 ECUs and ‘Borske Novine’ 10,000 ECUs [one ECU is worth approximately 1.15 US dollars.]
    The Association of Journalists of Yugoslavia claimed the money had been transferred through a Ljubljana-based centre and the National Bank of Hungary. 
    Under the Yugoslav laws, one can receive foreign funds for services rendered or as a gift on condition that all transactions go through a foreign currency account, which has so far not been the case with assistance to media. 
    The editors of the media that are receiving foreign assistance make no mention of what has been done to “deserve” financial backing or what are the conditions that should be fulfilled to join the list of the “privileged ones”, but the answer is evident after an insight into the media’s editorial policy. 
    On the other hand, there have been examples of some media which called for and were denied such assistance. One of them said he had been asked to write articles against the authorities, about alleged tortures of ethnic Albanians in Kosovo and to lash out against Yugoslavia as much as possible. 
    After all this, good-willed observers cannot but wonder how those who enjoy foreign assistance can call themselves “independent and free.”

Tanjug news agency, Belgrade, June 4, 1997.

II.  Rebroadcasters of VOA confer at US embassy.

    A conference of users of Voice of America programmes in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia ended at the US embassy in Belgrade on June 4. 
    The two-day conference, held under the auspices of the US embassy information centre, debated television broadcasting in the next millennium, the future of television news programmes and the influence of the internet on television.
    The conference was opened by US charge d’affaires Ambassador Richard Miles. 
    It was attended by representatives of the Voice of America and by directors and editors in chief of so-called “independent” and private radio and television stations in Serbia and Montenegro that use Voice of America programmes.
    Via the Voice of America in Washington, they could question Catherine Fitzpatrick, coordinator of the US nongovernmental Committee for the Protection of Journalists [CPJ] in central Europe, the former Soviet Union and ex-Yugoslavia, about media freedom in Serbia. 
    Answering their questions, which she described as a cry for help, Fitzpatrick said that her organization could give none but verbal support to the development and free range of the “independent, free and private media” in Serbia.
    She said there was no legal framework whereby the government of a state could be forced to allot broadcasting frequencies.
    She promised Serbian journalists to do her all to put pressure on the US administration and Secretary of State Madeleine Albright to bring pressure to bear, in turn, on the Serbian government to settle the difficult position of the private media in Serbia.
    Fitzpatrick urged that there should be a law recognizing the private media, and criticized the journalists for having no clear message, suggesting that they be much louder, because assistance promised by Albright for the private media would be direct.
    The editors of the Serbian media present promised their colleagues on the Voice of America to provide more up to date news from Serbia and about Serbia for the recently started “America Calling Serbia” programme.
    Visibly encouraged and cheered, Serbia’s so-called independent journalists left the US embassy determined to pull up their socks and get down to work allegedly aimed at bringing more freedom and objectivity to information in Serbia. 
    Does it have to be done by such a roundabout route as via the Voice of America. And why? 

Tanjug news agency, Belgrade, June 4, 1997.

III.  Federal government plans for the media.

    [Reporter]     Instead of the endless stories about truth and objectivity in the information business, we have to fight for a correct and professional attitude. Journalists are obliged to honour these principles in addition to those stipulated by law, Federal Information Minister Goran Matic said when addressing participants at the congress of the Serbian Journalists’Association. When asked how the state plans to strengthen the Yugoslav media, Matic announced that the federal government was going to be more open towards the media in general: 
[Matic]     You must have noticed changes in the media introduced by the federal government. One of the main changes concerns equality of access to the media and equal treatment for all the media. We have drafted some papers—you will be receiving some of them—in which we decided to eliminate the division between independent and dependent media. All media are dependent, it is just a question of whom they are dependent upon. It seems that the independent media are those that do not depend on us. When they depend on somebody else, they are considered independent. We simply decided that all media that had an influence on the public should become media through which the federal state would try to establish [words indistinct] so that we were not only devoting our attention to the so-called central media. All journalists accredited with the federal government are equal, and we will try to make that equality a reality, providing they are fair. 
[Reporter]     Speaking about the international image of Yugoslavia’s media, Minister Matic said that positive changes were increasing in number and that low-intensity information work [phrase as heard] was being financed by the former Yugoslav republics and certain Western governments. Matic stressed that in order to change Yugoslavia’s international image quickly, we ourselves must first devise a different system of values for evaluating what we have, strengthen the federal state and form a counterstrategy for our presentation before the international public. 

Serbian Radio, Belgrade, June 14, 1997

IV.  Moves announced against Serbia’s illegal broadcasters.

    Serbian Information Minister Radmila Milentijevic has said that the government will take steps against more than 480 illegal radio and TV stations. She said that the Serbian authorities intend to introduce broadcasting discipline regardless of foreign pressure. The following is the text of the interview she gave to Momcilo Boskovic on Mt Zlatibor on 14th June, as broadcast by Serbian radio:
[Boskovic]     Minister Milentijevic, you attended the first part of the congress of the Serbian Journalists’Association. We would like to hear your impressions, since you cannot stay until the end of the congress. 
[Milentijevic]     Well, my impressions are very positive. I have seen that the people who took part in the debate this morning tackled problems and topics that directly involve them. This is very important, because when you debate a topic you are looking for a solution. I was very impressed with Mr [Milorad] Komrakov’s [president of the Journalists’Association and Belgrade TV editor] speech and with all the other participants in the debate. I see in all of them a desire to tackle problems. I have seen that the profession is in a rather difficult position and that the positions of journalists and companies that publish newsletters are no better than that of the poor workers who are either unpaid or receive minimal wages. I have also realized that the problems with our ’ Jedinstvo’ [Serbian publication] in Kosovo are also very serious. Nevertheless, I have seen that people wish to tackle these problems. They want to find a solution, and they will certainly achieve results. As far as the statute that was discussed is concerned, I am absolutely certain that journalists, being the professionals they are, will all participate in drafting it since it will be the code of ethics that will guide you in your work. 
[Q]     During the debate, you presented new data on piracy in Serbia that you had not previously disclosed. The number of so-called wild radio and television stations has increased.
[A]     Yes, there has been an explosion of these media in the past three months, so we are now faced with an immense problem. Three months ago, we had 186 unregistered radio stations. Today the number has risen to over 340. Three months ago, we had 72 unregistered television stations; today the number is 140. These illegal stations are mushrooming and have created a grey economy in the field. The people who own these illegal stations are making piles of money, but they have no obligation towards the state; specifically, they do not pay taxes or fulfil any other obligations that are part of the television and radio business, such as their own programmes. They simply take programmes from other stations, which is unheard-of piracy in the domain.
[Q]     Attempts to (?control) them (?result) in pressure from foreign quarters. 
[A]     Yes, pressure from foreign quarters, but we are master in our own house, and we have to introduce some discipline regardless of what the foreign quarters have to say. That is the course we are taking, and that is how we intend to solve this problem. 
[Q]     Is there hope of (?restraining) them by the end of the year? 
[A]     I believe that the situation will be resolved on a temporary basis until the end of January, when I hope that we shall be in a position to organize a public competition. Until then, the federal authorities responsible for frequencies are processing them—a laborious and time-consuming task. For our part, we, the Traffic and Communications Ministry, will review the situation in Serbia in terms of our population’s needs and will decide on a standard that will be equal for all. This standard will be applied during the competition for the distribution of frequencies at the end of January and the beginning of February next year.

Serbian Radio, Belgrade, June 14, 1997

V.  Weekly says Serbia monopolizing state media.

    The Montenegrin weekly newspaper ‘Monitor’ has said that the new official Yugoslav radio-TV station will be directed primarily at Montenegro from Serbia, the larger of the two republics which form the new Yugoslavia. The paper added that Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic was setting up “another superior brainwashing machine” before the Yugoslav elections. The following are excerpts from an article by Rajko Cerovic entitled “A new propaganda umbrella,” published by the Montenegrin weekly ‘Monitor’:
    Soon television viewers in Montenegro and Serbia will be “the richer,” so to speak, for another television programme. Federal [Yugoslav] Information Minister Goran Matic said: “We believe that we need to define Radio-Television Yugoslavia at the level of the federal state, so that its transmissions cover the entire Yugoslav area and thus provide equal information for all citizens.” 
    Informed sources have lately been announcing that the head of the “new” Radio-Television Yugoslavia will be none other than the tried and tested Milorad Vucelic [deputy chairman of President Slobodan Milosevic’s ruling Socialist Party of Serbia], back in the game as the prominent man in Milosevic’s closest strategic—that is to say propaganda—operational headquarters. Therefore, in addition to the powerful system of Radio-Television Serbia, with its main centres in Belgrade, Novi Sad and Pristina, whose programmes, broadcast on two channels, are received in 70 per cent of the “minor eye in the head” [reference to Milosevic’s statement that Serbia and Montenegro are two eyes in one head], another powerful media broadcasting umbrella, as the proponent of propaganda, will be directed primarily at Montenegro. 
     What does Serbia want with yet another state television channel in addition to the three existing ones, additionally fortified by a series of allegedly independent, that is, private—in fact, parastatal—television stations? What sort of programme could be of interest to the federal state yet would not be broadcast in Montenegro? What other source of information at the level of the “federal” state is used by Montenegrin Television other than Tanjug, an agency which will undoubtedly be the backbone of the future “Radio-Television Yugoslavia?” 
    There can be no doubt that the new television centre will cover Montenegro flawlessly as far as technology is concerned, in fact, even better than the local republican television stations. Milosevic has enlisted Vucelic’s help because he is obviously in a hurry to cover Montenegro with yet another superior brainwashing machine before the elections, which he might be able to arrange in such a way as to enable the direct election of the federal president in the immediate future. It does not take much to guess that the main propaganda of the Radio-Television Yugoslavia station will primarily be directed at those political forces and individuals in Montenegro who, either within the framework of the existing authorities or those of the opposition, attempt to express Montenegro’s interest within the federal state or even—God forbid—outside it.
    Vucelic’s powerful propaganda umbrella will particularly stress Montenegro’s “separatist” tendencies, even when it comes to issues such as laws for the use of marine resources and the sea itself, which Serbia, at least nominally, still does not have. 
    It is known that the future “federal” television will include a handful of “trustworthy” people tried and tested during the antibureaucratic revolution and the Yugoslav war, employed by the television station of the minor “eye in the head” who will perhaps be allowed to use the Jekavian [Montenegrin] dialect to “bad-mouth” their republic.
    To use the terminology of weather reports, a black cloud is gathering over Montenegro, although, knowing Vucelic’s ability to falsify reality, it would perhaps be more appropriate to call it a media pollutant.
    In today’s pseudo federation, Montenegrin TV programmes have literally been banned in Serbia. Montenegrin TV’s news bulletins are not carried on the second channel, and neither is the entertainment and nonpolitical programme “Sunday Afternoon.” At the same time, Montenegrin TV broadcasts “Serbia Today,” “Belgrade Education Programme” and numerous other programmes of a local nature. However, Milosevic’s headquarters have assessed that Montenegro needs yet another powerful medium from Serbia, which sees itself as equal to the federation, at the same time behaving in a sovereign and separatist way even in matters of customs policy. At one time equal to all other republican television centres, Montenegrin TV, like the Montenegrin state after the loss of [former] Yugoslavia—to which event it contributed the lion’s share—has been relegated to the position of a provincial outpost, that is, a state and television region of Serbia. . . .
    One more forecast: Radio-Television Yugoslavia’s transmitters and programmes will undoubtedly include the [Bosnian] Serb Republic, thus rounding off the media sector of greater Serbia, a project which irrevocably destroyed an entire country and for which entire nations paid in blood. The saddest thing is that Montenegro, because of the decision of its authorities of “Yugoslav orientation,” will contribute financially to the work of Vucelic’s television, undoubtedly to their disadvantage.

Monitor, Podgorica, May 30, 1997