GOVOR MRNJE U MEDIJIMA

Izdava: CENZURA Branimira osia 5, Novi Sad Produkcija: Omladinski centar CK13 Vojvode Bojovia 13, Novi Sad Realizacija: Alternativna kulturna organizacija AKO Vojvode Bojovia 13, Novi Sad Centar za socijalna istraivanja CSI Vojvode Bojovia 13, Novi Sad Urednik: eljko Klari Prevod: Vincent Spevak Petar Atanackovi Dizajn grafikog simbola projekta: Hanna Blank Dizajn i priprema za tampu: Mirjana Popovi tampa: Daniel Print, Novi Sad Novi Sad, 2009 Projekat podrao: National Endowement for Democracy

Svako kopiranje i dalje korienje tekstova iz knjige je dobrodolo (izuzev upotrebe u okviru rasistikog, seksistikog, faistikog konteksta).

G OVOR M R N J E U M E D I JI M A

CENZURA Novi Sad, 2009

SADRAJ Petar Atanackovi GOVOR MRNJE U MEDIJIMA: UVOD......................................................................7 Hanna Blank RATNA PROPAGANDA: MEDIJI KAO INSTRUMENT MANIPULACIJE........................10

Transkript tribina: GOVOR MRNJE U MEDIJIMA: RATOVI 1990-ih.....................................................17 GOVOR MRNJE U MEDIJIMA: SRBIJA POSLE 5. OKTOBRA....................................40

Petar Atanackovi GOVOR MRNJE U MEDIJIMA: UVOD Istraivanje govora mrnje zauzima znaajno mesto u analizi javnog diskursa u savremenom srpskom drutvu. Ratno iskustvo 1990-ih i nerazvijenost politike kulture u Srbiji, uticali su na veliku rairenost govora mrnje, koji u odreenim krugovima javnosti predstavlja gotovo dominantni oblik javnog govora. Meutim, postoje nedoumice oko definisanja samog ovog pojma, koje su u mnogome i odredile odnos javnog mnenja prema njegovim manifestacijama. S jedne strane prisutna je namera da se svaka vrsta uvredljivog govora, javnog manifestovanja nekulture i netolerantnosti prema drugaijem, najee politikom miljenju, (pogreno) obelei pojmom govora mrnje, ime se jasno doprinosi obesmiljavanju samog termina. Sa druge strane, pak, tipini primeri javnog govora mrnje u odreenim (opet politikim) krugovima percipiraju se kao samo emotivno snaniji izlivi patriotizma i manifestacije razvijene nacionalne svesti, ime se, opet, eli postii istovetni efekat. Pri tome uobiajeni vid odbijanja prigovora o govoru mrnje jeste pozivanje na pravo i slobodu govoru. Istina je da sloboda govora predstavlja osnovno pravo, ali ne moe se apsolutizovati do te mere da se (zlo)upotrebom ove slobode ugroavaju prava, slobode i fizika bezbednost drugih ljudi, drutvenih grupa i pojedinaca. Zato je neophodno pokuati sa definisanjem pojma govora mrnje, a jedna od moguih definicija moe glasiti ovako: pod govorom mrnje podrazumeva se propagiranje, velianje ili opravdavanje zloina, kao i podsticanje na zloin prema drutvenim grupama i njihovim pripadnicima, a na osnovu njihove rase, boje koe, verske pripadnosti, nacionalnog i etnikog porekla, pola ili seksualne orijentacije. Kao govor mrnje se tretira i iznoenje ili prenoenje ideja o superiornosti ili podreenosti jedne drutvene grupe ili njenih pripadnika, kao i upotreba simbola koji podstiu na mrnju i istiu superiornost ili podreenost drutvenih grupa i njihovih pripadnika1. Zato uopte treba isticati problem govora mrnje u Srbiji? Iskustvo ratova iz poslednje decenije 20. veka, koji su paljivo pripremljeni ratom rei i razliitim diskvalifikacijama drugih i drugaijih etnikih i verskih grupa, predstavlja jasno
1 Govor mrnje u Srbiji, Newsletter No. 1, YUCOM Komitet pravnika za ljudska prava, Beograd, 2008, strana 1. www.yucom.org.yu

upozorenje na koji nain govor mrnje u sredstvima javnih komunikacija moe predstavljati uvod u oruane sukobe i sa njima povezane ratne zloine, etnika ienja i genocidne poduhvate. Permanentnom ovinistikom propagandom, podsticanjem strahova i predrasuda, pospeivanjem verske, nacionalne i rasne iskljuivosti kroz ratno-hukake propagandne aktivnosti, populacija Srbije, Hrvatske i BiH poetkom 1990-ih je dovedena u stanje potpune neuraunljivosti. U takvoj situaciji sve je bilo mogue i svaki zloin imao je svoje opravdanje, bilo da je re o ubistvima, silovanjima, proterivanjima civilnog stanovnitva ili organizovanju koncentracionih logora. ak i onaj najstraniji meu ratnim zloinima genocid nalazio je svoje opravdanje i logino mesto u okviru ireg koncepta t.j. celine. Utoliko treba istai da genocid u Srebrenici 1995. godine ne bi bilo mogue ni realizovati ni opravdati bez propagandnih aktivnosti koje su mu prethodile. Podsticanje starih strahova, etnike i verske iskljuivosti, neprestane istorijske i verske reference (podseanje na turski jaram, na bedem hrianske Evrope, pozivanje na osvetu za bedu iz vremena Otomanske vlasti itd.), zajedno sa irenjem rasizma, pre svega olienom u tezi o potrebi da Muslimani, kao ljudi nie vrste, prosto nestanu i tako oslobode ivotni prostor za Srbe, na kraju je rezultiralo genocidom. Ovaj ratni zloin bez presedana ne bi bilo mogue realizovati i opravdati t.j. podvrgnuti normalizaciji bez mesecima i godinama intenzivno izvoene propagande, zasnovane na govoru mrnje. U tom smislu treba istai glavnu karakteristiku govora mrnje, a to je injenica da govor mrnje ne predstavlja iskljuivo verbalnu aktivnost, ve mu je imanentno delovanje na praktinoj realizaciji verbalnog momenta. Primeri iz vremena ratnih sukoba u bivoj Jugoslaviji devedesetih predstavljaju najoigledniju manifestaciju govora mrnje i njegovog uticaja na drutvo. Meutim, svakodnevni primeri irenja govora mrnje, podsticanja na obraun ili opravdavanja konflikta sa razliitim drutvenim grupama, diskriminacije na osnovu etnike, verske, seksualne, starosne ili neke druge karakteristike, prisutni su gotovo svakodnevno u javnom govoru srpskog drutva i danas, 14 godina od okonanja ratnih sukoba. Poslednji u nizu sluajeva kampanja protiv Helsinkog odbora za ljudska prava i Sonje Biserko u septembru 2008. godine2 , kao i ovinistiki ispad biveg ministra Velimira Ilia u vezi proslave Dana dravnosti u februaru 2009. godine samo potvruju gornju tezu. Dakle, oigledno je da pojedini delovi javnosti jo uvek nisu izvukli neophodne
2 Izvetaj o ovom sluaju objavljen je u publikaciji Govor mrnje u Srbiji. Napadi na Sonju Biserko kao klasian primer govora mrnje prema braniteljkama ljudskih prava, Newsletter No.1, u izdanju YUCOM-a

zakljuke na osnovu iskustva ratova 1990-ih, ili, to moe biti znaajnije, nisu eleli da ih izvuku... Projekat Govor mrnje u medijima pokrenut je sa ciljem istraivanja fenomena govora mrnje i njegovog mesta u javnom diskursu, pre svega u medijima, kao drutvenom faktoru od najveeg uticaja na raspoloenje i ponaanje javnosti. Kroz seriju tribina odranih tokom prve polovine decembra 2008. godine u Omladinskom centru CK13, kao i kroz individualni istraivaki rad, grupa autora, novinara, lingvista i istoriara pokuala je da definie pojam govora mrnje, da analizira njegove manifestacije u toku 1990-ih godina, kao i da sagleda njegove pojavne oblike na medijskoj sceni nakon demokratskih promena u Srbiji 2000. godine. Osnovna ideja projekta, koji od samog poetka nije posedovao velike pretenzije, bila je da se pokua definisati i osvetliti ovaj problem iz ugla razliitih strunjaka, ali pre svega novinara i publicista, kao glavnih aktera medijske scene i, u mnogome, kreatora raspoloenja javnosti. Metodi javnog dijaloga data je prednost u odnosu na metodu individualnih i/ili grupnih istraivanja i utoliko osnovu ove publikacije i predstavljaju transkripti dve javne tribine. Namera autora ovde iznetih izlaganja i ogleda, kao i namera urednitva, nije bila da se ovom publikacijom zaokrui ova tema ili stavi taka na njeno istraivanje. Materijal koji ovom prilikom donosi publikacija treba i razumeti na taj nain dakle, kao prilog istraivanju fenomena govora mrnje. Iz tog razloga publikacija i ne moe predstavljati okonanje analize i istraivanja, ve upravo nagovetaj njihovog stvarnog zaetka.

10

Hanna Blank RATNA PROPAGANDA: MEDIJI KAO INSTRUMENT MANIPULACIJE Uvod Mediji igraju kljunu ulogu u periodima konflikata i ratova. Mediji sami ne mogu proizvesti ratove, ali njihova sistematska manipulacija igra znaajnu ulogu u planovima ratnih lidera. Uticajni mediji se koriste da bi se stekla podrka javnosti ili barem javno tolerisanje politike koja, u najboljem sluaju, predstavlja pretnju miru i javnoj bezbednosti. Ova podrka ili tolerancija ne moe biti osigurana ukoliko javnost ne prihvati stav da oruani sukob nee predstavljati preveliku cenu za ostvarenje nacionalnih ciljeva pri emu su mediji predstavljali sutinskog pribavljaa ovakvog pristanka1. Takoe, upotreba medija kao sredstva pritisaka i represije ne predstavlja nita novo. Kontinuiranu tradiciju autoritarnosti u medijima objanjavaju rei Konstantina Geberta: kada prevodite sa renika komunizma na renik demokratije, morate izmeniti i renik i gramatiku... ukoliko elite da prevedete neto sa renika komunizma na renik nacionalizma, treba samo da promenite renik. Gramatika ostaje ista. ...to je ukljuenje protiv iskljuenja i nasilje kao legitiman nain ostvarenja prethodno ideolokih, a sada nacionalnih ciljeva2. Opravdanje autoritarne vladavine se sprovodi kroz manipulaciju strahovima ljudi. Reimi u Jugoslaviji su sistematski razvijali strah od politikog procesa, zato to su znali da to due budu spreavali mase od participiranja u civilnom ivotu, mogu nastaviti sa voenjem nekih svojih politika3. Metodi i principi ratne propagande u medijima injenica je da javnost ne eli konflikte ili ratove. Ali ova opta pozicija javnosti moe biti izmenjena razliitim mehanizmima. Prvi je da se javnost ubedi da jedinu krivicu za konflikt i/ili rat snosi druga strana, da je rat nametnut od strane neprijatelja i da se mora prihvatiti. Konflikt ili rat nije naprosto na izbor, nego mi moramo da se branimo od njih, da suprotstavimo na nesebini i dobar cilj njihovim sebinim i loim
1 Thompson 1999, p. 291f 2 Thompson 1999, p. 293 (K Gebert) 3 Thompson 1999, p. 294 (Blagojevic, S and Demirovic, H: Erewhon 1994 Amsterdam)

11

razlozima i ciljevima. Takva je bila situacija u Srbiji i drugim bivim jugoslovenskim republikama u toku 1990-ih godina. Sa jedne strane politiari su isticali svoju volju za mirom, ali na drugoj strani i dalje su tvrdili da su bili naterani na rat, da je prvi napad doao od strane neprijatelja, da su morali da se brane, da su postupali u skladu sa meunarodnim pravom itd...4 Zahvaljujui ovoj logici, uvek je postojala jasna slika u srpskim medijima, zato to srpska strana nikada ne napada; ona odgovara na neprijateljske provokacije, napade, zloine ili genocid5. U medijima srpske snage su uvek predstavljane kao nenaoruani branioci vekovnih ognjita ili ee skraeno navoeni kao branioci ili paralelno kao oslobodioci gradova i sela. U toku prva dva meseca opsade mediji nisu spominjali da je Sarajevo bombardovano od strane srpskih snaga. Upravo suprotno prema reporterki Radi oki muslimanske vlasti su drale Sarajevo u opsadi iznutra, tako da su Srbi bili u poziciji da brane svoja vekovna ognjita i vekovna brda oko Sarajeva6. Poseban primer koji bi potkrepio ovu tezu moe se nai u vreme sukoba sa NATO paktom 1999. godine. Na principu okrivljavanja drugog, drugog koji je sve zapoeo argumentacija zapadne vojne alijanse je sledila istu logiku: zato to neprijatelj prezire i potcenjuje nau snagu, mi ne moemo vie biti samo posmatrai, ve smo primorani da demonstriramo nau snagu7. Na isti nain zapadna propaganda je tvrdila da je Jugoslavija provocirala NATO i na kraju isprovocirala vojnu intervenciju. Francuske novine Le Soir su 18. januara 1999. godine pisale da Jugoslavija provocira NATO sa neverovatnim cinizmom i pitale se koliko e dugo najvei vojni savez opravdavati svoju uzdranost i posmatraku ulogu8. Obino postoji velik procep izmeu zvaninih i nezvaninih ratnih ciljeva. U sluaju rata sa NATO t.j. tzv. intervencije, zvanini ciljevi bili su ouvanje multietnikog karaktera Kosova, prevencija nasilja nad manjinama, implementacija demokratskog sistema i ruenje srpske vlade. Nakon rata bilo je oigledno da veina zvaninih ciljeva nije ostvarena. Ali, nezvanini ekonomski i geopolitiki ciljevi bili su ostvareni, iako nikada pre rata nisu bili spomenuti. Nakon sukoba NATO je stekao znaajniji uticaj na jugoistoku Evrope, otvarajui baze u Albaniji, Makedoniji i na Kosovu. Plan iznet
4 Morelli, 2004, p. 15 5 Thompson 1999, p. 90 6 Thompson 1999, p. 90 7 Morelli 2004, p. 29 8 Morelli 2004, p. 30

12

na konferenciji u Rambujeu pre ratnog sukoba vien je takoe kao implementacija slobodnog trita i ukljuivanje Kosova u trite svetskog kapitala9. Na kraju su bombe, koje su dokrajile jugoslovensku postsocijalistiku privredu, predstavljale poslednji korak za otvaranje itavog regiona prilivu stranog kapitala t.j. za njegovo ukljuivanje u svetske ekonomske tokove. Prema reima Dejmija eja, portparola NATO pakta, trokovi vojnih operacija e biti pokriveni profitima koji e se dugorono ostvariti ulaganjima u regionu10. Drugim reima, sasvim je sigurno da motivi za rat nisu bili humanistike prirode, ali da su ovakvi motivi bili propagirani da bi se uticalo na javno mnenje i stekla podrka za rat11. Drugi vaan momenat mobilizacije javnosti je kreiranje straha. Da bi se drava mogla ukljuiti u rat, veoma je vano da stekne podrku populacije za takav in. To je razlog zbog kojeg propaganda mora ubediti ljude da su njihovi nezavisnost, ast, sloboda, ak i ivoti u opasnosti i da rat primorava na implementaciju neospornih vrednosti12. Kroz neprestano predstavljanje i ponavljanje pretnje koja dolazi od strane neprijatelja, postavljen je scenario sveprisutne opasnosti. Opis neprijatelja kao demonske pojave cilja da moralno opravda rat i da postavi kategorije dobra (=mi) i zla (=neprijatelj). Na primer, jugoslovenska novinska agencija Tanjug koristila je 1992. godine krajnje problematine i steretipne termine za oruane snage bosanske vlade: muslimanske snage, mudahedini, muslimansko-hrvatske snage, muslimanski ekstremisti, muslimanske paravojne formacije itd13. Cilj ovakvog pristupa i demonizacije neprijatelja bilo je stvaranje opteg utiska da su muslimansko-hrvatske snage prouzrokovale meuetniki sukob postizanjem nezavisnosti bez srpskog pristanka; i da su bosanski Srbi samo reagovali na ovu pretnju i samo se branili...14. Znaajan momenat predstavlja personalizovanje neprijatelja. Upotreba nasilnih stereotipa kojima se opisuje neprijateljska strana primetna je i u hrvatskim i u srpskim medijima, jednako u tampi, na radiju i televiziji. Na jednoj strani su srpski teroristi ili srbo-komunistika okupatorska armija; na drugoj strani hrvatske snage se nazivaju ustaama, ime se izjednaavaju sa armijom Hitlerovih satelita iz vremena II svetskog
9 Morelli 2004, p. 56 10 Morelli 2004, p. 57 11 Morelli 2004, p. 58 12 Morelli 2004, p 45 13 Thompson 1999, p. 26 14 Thompson 1999, p. 26

13

rata15. Ratna propaganda esto je koristila rasistiku retoriku da bi inkriminisala neprijatelja, to je bilo tipino i za srpsku i za hrvatsku stranu u balkanskom ratu. Upotreba jezika takoe igra vanu ulogu u medijima tokom ratnih sukoba. Na primer, epitet povampireni je predstavljao jedan od omiljenijih u srpskoj ratnoj propagandi. Na primer, Radovan Karadi, ratni lider bosanskih Srba, opisivao je rat u Hrvatskoj kao borbu protiv povampirene faistike svesti(N Malcolm (1994): Bosnia. A Short History. London, 228)16. Ovaj propagandni metod predstavlja rat kao konflikt izmeu varvarstva (neprijatelj) i civilizacije (mi). I u tu svrhu potrebno je potvrivanje da neprijatelj svojom slobodnom voljom i sistematski ini okrutnosti, dok se na naoj strani dogaaju greke i to iskljuivo sluajno t.j. bez namere17. Na taj nain ekstremni oblici kriminalnog ponaanja, koji bez sumnje predstavljaju deo svakog rata, postaju ekskluzivni atribut neprijateljske armije. Ovakva armija onda se opisuje kao vojska koja se sastoji od beskrupuloznih i anarhinih zveri18. Kljunu ulogu u ratnoj propagandi predstavlja blokada informacija t.j. kontrola, cenzura i prilagoavanje informacija za javnost. Radi konstantne podrke populacije ratnim naporima, potrebno je adaptirati izvesne informacije i interpretacije podataka. Raspon metoda se prostire od proste dezinformacije do ispravljanja informacija, od opisivanja sopstvenih gubitaka u sukobu kao zanemarljivih, a gubitaka neprijatelja kao ogromnih, do prostog isputanja negativnih i neeljenih vesti. Kako bilo, medijsko izvetavanje karakterie manjak odgovarajuih detalja, nepostojanje balansiranog predstavljanja vanih informacija, komentari zasnovani na predrasudama, oigledan govor mrnje i peglanje kontroverznih dogaaja19. Na primer, NATO pakt je pokuavao da opravda bombardovanja u toku sukoba sa Jugoslavijom, izmeu ostalih stvari, i tvrdnjom da je na ovaj nain uniten ogroman broj tenkova Vojske Jugoslavije. Izvetaj Pentagona iz juna 1999. godine je procenio da realan broj unitenih tenkova ne prelazi 14 (a ne 120, kako je ranije tvreno)20. Dalje, britanski RAF je priznao 2000. godine da je samo 40% municije, koja je bila izbaena nad jugoslovenskom teritorijom, stvarno i pogodila svoje ciljeve. Sa druge
15 Zimmermann, W. In: Thompson 1999, p. 328 16 Thompson 1999, p. 23 17 Morelli 2004, S. 59 18 Morelli 2004, S. 61 19 Thompson 1999, p. 200 20 Morelli 2004, S. 93

14

strane, jugoslovenski mediji su neprestano objavljivali fotografiju trojice amerikih vojnika, uhvaenih poetkom ratnog sukoba. Oigledno je namera bila da se javnost ubedi da je uhvaeno mnogo vie od trojice vojnika. Pred kraj sukoba jedan od istaknutih jugoslovenskih generala tvrdio je da su NATO snage izgubile na desetine aviona, helikoptera i bespilotnih letelica, kao i stotine krstareih raketa21. Dakle, na obe sukobljene strane ovakvi tipovi informacija imali su za cilj da osnae moral sopstvenih trupa i da ubede sopstvene populacije u opravdanost konflikta. U sluaju izvetavanja stranih medija o pojedinim dogaajima, kada izvetaji nisu mogli biti prepravljani ili ignorisani, srpska dravna televizija RTS je, na primer, primenjivala razliite taktike da umanji eventualnu propagandnu tetu. Pobijanje stranih izvetaja, kvarenje efekta prie paljivom pripremom i prezentacijom, premetanjem na kraj informativnog programa ili slanje paralelnih izvetaja o istom dogaaju da bi se umanjila snaga autentine informacije, samo su neki od metoda koji su upotrebljavani da bi se negativne informacije odstranile iz vesti22. Takoe, uobiajenu praksu predstavljale su instrukcije medijima i novinskim agencijama. Na primer, 1999. godine srpsko ministarstvo informisanja je izdalo konkretna uputstva kako da se izvetava o razliitim stvarima: na primer, akcije vojske i policije morale su biti predstavljene kao odbrambene aktivnosti, dok su NATO snage morale biti opisivane kao agresori23. Slian kod ispravnih naziva i termina bio je postavljen i na hrvatskom HTV-u 1991. godine. Istovetni termini koje je koristio RTS 1999. godine, hrvatska televizija je primenjivala kada je izvetavala o srpskim snagama koje su bile aktivne u razliitim delovima Hrvatske24. Ratovi i konflikti esto imaju religijski karakter t.j. dobijaju i odreenu versku dimenziju. U konfliktu izmeu Srba i Albanaca, verska oseanja su takoe bila zloupotrebljavana radi kreiranja mi-oni dihotomije. Na primer, srpska propaganda je esto referisala na sukob krsta i polumeseca. Pravoslavno hrianstvo, kao jedna od osnova srpskog identiteta, dobilo je naroito na znaaju kada je trebalo ujediniti srpsku populaciju protiv NATO pakta25. I ovako i onako postojala je velika umeanost crkve i verskih organizacija u rat. Na primer, pojedini biskupi iz zapadne Evrope podrali su
21 Morelli 2004, S. 94 22 Thompson 1999, p. 92 23 Thompson 1999, p. 117 24 Thompson 1999, p. 159 25 Morelli 2004, S. 117

15

intervenciju NATO pakta u Jugoslaviji, dok su na drugoj strani ruska i grka pravoslavna crkva podravale njihovu srpsku pravoslavnu brau26. Ali, u pogledu verskih motiva treba spomenuti injenicu da e oni biti (zlo)upotrebljeni u toku ratnog sukoba samo ukoliko slue svojoj osnovnoj svrsi t.j. ukoliko uvruju propagandne pozicije27. Ratna praksa pokazuje da se novinari vrlo esto mogu nai u poziciji da budu proglaeni za izdajnike. Ukoliko samo obavljaju svoj posao, pokuavajui da sasluaju argumente obe strane i da nakon toga formiraju sopstveno miljenje ili da makar posumnjaju u zvaninu verziju dogaaja, sto mogu doi u situaciju da se posmatraju kao saradnici neprijatelja28. Veina novinara u zapadnim zemljama tokom 1999. godine imala je mogunost izbora izmeu prostog prenosa informacija koje su dobijali na dnevnim konferencijama za tampu NATO portparola Dejmija eja ili da preispitaju te informacije i da ih kritiki komentariu. Nekolicina novinara koja nije odabrala laki put morala je da se suoi sa verbalnim napadima i prigovorima da su antizapadnjaci, antidemokrate pa ak i sledbenici Miloevia29. Na isti nain albanski intelektualci sa Kosova, koji su kritikovali zloine i druge kriminalne akte prema nealbanskom stanovnitvu, nalo se pod udarom kritika zvanine novinske agencije kosovskih Albanaca, koja je u to vreme bila bliska UK30. Francuski nedeljnik L Evenement od 29. aprila 1999. godine, pod naslovom Saradnici Miloevia objavio je fotografije i imena francuskih intelektualaca, pisaca i pevaa koji su bili skeptini ili kritini spram intervencije NATO. ta vie, ovaj magazin je napadao druge medije, koji su davali prostora inkriminisanim osobama31. Takoe u Hrvatskoj i Srbiji, novinari su se u sluaju kritikovanja odluka vlade suoavali sa ogromnim pritiskom, kako od strane vlade, tako i do strane drugih novinara. Diskreditovanje novinara kao dezorjentisanih ili nepatriota postala je uobiajena praksa u dravnim medijima. Iz tog razloga znaajnu ulogu na javnoj sceni igrali su nezavisni mediji. U toku ratova u 1990-im godinama, u nekim delovima Srbije, uglavnom u Beogradu, postojale su nezavisne medijske produkcije, koje su donosile stavove opozicionih stranaka i otvoreno kritikovale politiku Miloevievog reima. U takve medije spadali su magazin
26 Morelli 2004, S. 118 27 Morelli 2004, S. 119 28 Morelli 2004, S. 124 29 Morelli 2004, S. 125 31 Morelli 2004, S. 126

16

Vreme, TV Studio B i Radio B92. Meutim, podruje uticaja ovih medija bilo je dosta ogranieno, a svaki pokuaj irenja uticaja bio je sabotiran ili direktno zaustavljan. Reim je pri tome koristio najrazliitije metode: manipulacije sa porezima i trokovima za nezavisne publikacije i emitere, onemoguavanje distribucije tampanih medija van Beograda, stalni pritisak dravnih medija na nezavisne izvetae, kao i stvaranje atmosfere fizike ugroenosti, u kojoj su bili mogui i deavali se fiziki napadi na novinare, pa ak i ubistva32. Meutim, nezavisni mediji, uprkos svim ogranienjima, pritiscima i napadima, uspeli su da opstanu i odigrali su veliku ulogu u ruenju Miloevieve propagande i njegovog politikog reima.

Bibliografija: Morelli, A. (2004). Die Prinzipien der Kriegspropaganda. Klampen Dietrich. Thompson, M. (1999). Forging War: The Media in Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia, and Hercegovina. University Of Luton Press.

32 Thompson 1999, p. 140

17

Transkript tribine: GOVOR MRNJE U MEDIJIMA: RATOVI 1990-ih

08. 12. 2008 Omladinski centar CK13

Uesnici: Milo Pankov (magistar knjievnosti, Novi Sad) Senka Gavranov (magistarka lingvistike, Novi Sad) Dinko Gruhonji (novinar, predsednik NDNV, Novi Sad) Moderator: Zoran Petakov (istoriar, Novi Sad)

18

Zoran Petakov: Dobro doli na prvu od dve tribine u okviru projekta Govor mrnje u medijima. Projekat je realizovan od strane Alternativne Kulturne Organizacije i u okviru njega emo pokuati da pokrenemo neke teme i pokuamo da odgovorimo na nekoliko pitanja jer poznato je kakav je bio uticaj medija na raspad Jugoslavije. Drugo pitanje koje emo pokuati da pokrenemo jeste ta se desilo nakon tzv. demokratskih promena 2000. godine. Da li se uloga medija u drutvu promenila ili su oni zadrali svoju ulogu ali su promenili retoriku. Veeras e nam u tome pomoi Dinko Gruhonji predsednik NDNV, novinar BETE, gospodin Milo Pankov, magistar lingvistike i Senka Gavranov magistarka engleskog jezika. Moje ime je Zoran Petakov. Miloe, ti si se dosta dugo vremena bavio i bavi se jo uvek tom temom. Pa najpre prvo da definiemo taj pojam koji se toliko upotrebljava u kolokvijalnom govoru Govor mrnje . ta je to? ta on podrazumeva? Zato i kako je sve poelo? Izvoli. Milo Pankov: Hvala. Ja bih na poetku rekao nekoliko rei o nekim osnovnim stvarima kao to su uloga masovnih medija u modernom drutvu, a zatim bi se osvrnuo na neke terminoloke stvari. ta je sam govor mrnje, kako je on definisan, kako se koristi, kako se proiruje putem masovnih medija. Uloga masovnih medija u modernom drutvu Masovni mediji esto se pogreno povezuju samo sa fenomenom zabave, pa se kao takvi smatraju marginalnim u ivotu veine ljudi. Meutim, masovne komunikacije su deo ukupnih drutvenih aktivnosti. Jedna od njihovih osnovnih uloga jeste informisanje, ali i da svojim angamanom zauzmu kritiki stav prema temama i dogaajima od javnog znaaja i time utiu na kreiranje javnosti, odnosno javnog mnjenja. Ne samo zato to utiu na nae stavove, ve i zbog toga to predstavljaju instrumente pristupa razliitim oblastima ljudskog znanja. U ranijim teorijama komunikacije mediji su oznaeni kao posrednik u prenosu poruke/vesti, meutim sa porastom uticaja elektronskih medija i razvojem informacionih tehnologija koje omoguuju gledaocima da budu trenutni svedoci nekog dogaaja koji se deava na drugom delu sveta poeo je da raste njihov uticaja na oblikovanje sadraja poruke koju prenose. Ova pojava navela je Meklauna na zakljuaka da je u drutvu budunosti

19

dolo do preoblikovanja komunikacionog lanca tako da medij postaje poruka. Uticaj i vlasnitvo nad sredstvima informisanja postaju tako kljuni instrumenti politike i finansijske moi zbog mogunosti medija da utiu na kreiranje javnosti i saopte verziju stvarnosti na veoma ubedljiv i sugestivan nain. S druge strane, neke od savremenih teorija javnosti (Jirgena Habermasa, ije ideje podrava od domaa sociolokinja Zorica Tomi) istiu da upravo irenje masovnih medija i masovne zabave ini da javna sfera postaje obina varka. Javno mnjenje se ne formira na osnovu otvorene diskusije nego putem manipulacije i kontrole. Po miljenju Bodrijara pojava masovnih medija, pogotovu elektronskih promenila je samu prirodu naih ivota, jer ne samo da predstavlja svet, ve i definie kakav je svet u kojem ivimo. On smatra da se u doba u kojem su masovni mediji sveprisutni stvara nova realnost hiperrealnost, u kome se prepliu ljudsko ponaanje i medijske slike. Nove oblasti medijskog prostora dovele su i do prekompozicije u sferama javnog i privatnog ivota. Pojava novih medijskih tehnologija, poput interneta na primer doprinosi demokratizaciji medija i injenici da vae miljenje ili iskustvo predstavljeno posredstvom nekog foruma moe biti dostupno milionima irom planete, ali u isto vreme roena je televizijska publika koja veruje da je legitimna stvar da svaki, pa i najintimniji deo neijeg ivota bude dostupan medijskoj publici, posredstvom televizijskih kamera, kao to je i ostvareno u ou programu Veliki brat. Politiki diskurs i medijski diskurs Kao jedna od metoda za prouavanja upotrebe jezika osnovana je analiza diskursa, disciplina koja prouava upotrebu irih jezikih jedinica u odreenom kontekstu. Jedna od njenih najirih oblasti primene upravo se odnosi na jezik medija i govor medija, kao i na razliite drutvene sfere upotrebe jezika, poput politike. Savremeni teoretiari medijskog diskursa naroito su se bavili sadrajima medijske poruke u odnosu na drutveni kontekst i drutvena znaenja. Na osnovu socio-kognitivnog modela Teuna Van Dijka dovoenjem vesti u drutveni kontekst, na nivoima jezikih mikro-struktura pokazuje se ostvarivanje drutvenih odnosa i procesa. Pristup Normana Ferklafa je po mnogo emu slian Van Dijkovom, s tom razlikom to on pokuava u svoj model da inkorporira elemente intertekstualne analize, utvrivanjem porekla i znaenja razliitih govornih (diskursnih) anrova unutar medijskog uzorka. On postavlja tri podruja analize medijskih tekstova sa ciljem razumevanja odnosa

20

izmeu komunikacionog procesa i socio-kulturnog okruenja. To su problemi : - reprezentacije (naina na koji je svet ili dogaaj predstavlja) - identiteta (na koji nain su predstavljeni identiteti uesnika u novinskom tekstu) - odnosa (analiza odnosa u komunikacionom lancu medija : odnosi medijpublika, politiar-publika i slino). Povezanost politikog diskursa sa medijima ostvaruje se zahvaljujui injenici da se osvajanje i ouvanje drutvene moi, u novije vreme, efikasno obavlja uz pomo medija. Pristup i kontrola medijima govorniku prua mogunost da plasira svoje poruke istovremeno pred milionskim auditorijumom. Otuda i sam sadraj i nain oblikovanja politikog govora stoji u sve tenjoj vezi sa izborom medija i medijskog anra, kao svojim direktnim komunikacionim kanalom. Preplitanje govora uesnika u medijskom tekstu ili emisiji veoma je znaajno prilikom analize ukupne medijske poruke. Potrebno je razgraniiti ta je stav samog medija, odnosno govor novinara, a ta su delovi drugog govora (posebno politikog govora) koji mediji prenose u direktnoj ili indirektnoj formi. Govor mrnje Govor mrnje postao je u novije vreme veoma izlizan i semantiki neodreen termin. Veoma esto se pozivaju na to da su postali njegove rtve upravo osobe i politiki krugovi koji su ga najee koristili, uspevajui prilino veto da relativizuju njegovo znaenje. Ono to je osnovno znaenje govora mrnje kao termina (hate speech) o emu je u domaoj literaturi najvie govorio i pisao Ranko Bugarski jeste javno etiketiranje, diskvalifikacija i satanizacija odreene drutvene grupe, koja esto moe da bude (naroito u ratnim uslovima) i najava mogue fizike likvidacije. Ovako odreen, govor mrnje jeste sredstvo kojim se u mobilizatorske svrhe slui jezik politike orijentisane na uutkivanje ili odstranjivanje oponenata, esto u fazi pripreme za rat ili u toku samog rata, kada govoru mrnje pripada vodea uloga orkestriranja ratne retorike. Neki od njegovih uzora svakako bi se mogli nai u rasistikoj propagandi Treeg Rajha, ali nama je svakako najblii i najoigledniji primer medijsko raspirivanje mrnje koje je prethodilo ratu na prostoru bive Jugoslavije. Struktura govora mrnje podrazumeva dve suprotstavljene grupe aktera, pri emu je govorno lice, bilo da je u pitanju politiar, novinar, urednik, ili neka druga javna linost, nosilac odreenog identiteta i predstavnik grupe MI (koju zastupa on i njegovi istomiljenici), a onaj

21

prema kome je usmerena predstavlja grupu ONI ili DRUGI. U osnovi govora mrnje ne postoji tolerancija, potovanje razliitog miljenja, kulture, identiteta. U toku svojih radova Bugarski je identifikovao razliite faze upotrebe govora mrnje na medijskom prostoru Srbije. Od poetka pojave ratnohukake propagande, koju sam pomenuo grupu MI inili su Srbi, predstavljeni kao patriote, branioci vekovnih ognjita, rtve nametnutog rata, nebeski narod i slino. Dok su sa druge strane bili svi oni koji e doi u konflikt sa tadanjom politikom Miloevievog reima: drugi jugoslovenski narodi, kasnije svrstani u ustake koljae, dihad ratnike, iptarske teroriste i slino. U drugoj fazi grupu MI vie ne ini srpski narod, ve reim u Srbiji, a na meti su kao ONI Zapadne sile i unutranji neprijatelji (opozicione stranke u Srbiji ). Tako su na primer uesnici protesta 1996. godine nakon pobede opozicije na lokalnim izborima: huligani, izdajnici i strani agenti, profaistiki elementi, kvislinzi, da bi sa rasplamsavanjem sukoba i izmicanjem vlasti reimski mediji pribegli i agresivnijoj retorici pa su koriteni termini poput: NATO-faistiki ljam, aica novih janiara, izrodi, moralne nakaze... Ovo su svakako najoigledniji primeri, koji e nam ostati u pamenju jer se znatan deo graana tih godina oseao lino prozvanim i ugroenim. Meutim, perfidniji naini pakovanja medijskih poruka i prepoznavanje oblika govora mrnje u drutvima koja nisu diktatorska i od strane medija koji slove za demokratske jeste oblast inenzivnog naunog prouavanja. U zapadnim medijima se kao takva podrazumeva svaka negativna karakterizacija, odnosno irenje stereotipa posredstvom medija usmerenih ka marginalizovanim grupama kao to su: stranci, manjinske zajednice ili ene. Povreda ovih normi podlee krenju ljudskih i graanskih prava i postoje precizno definisani kodeksi kojih se mediji moraju pridravati kako bi izbegli ovakve sluajeve. U radovima Van Dijka i Rut Vodak nailazimo na sistematsko prouavanje rasistikog govora, koji je naroito apostrofiran u vreme Hajderove vladavine u Austriji pre nekoliko godina, kada je zbog itavog sluaja i sama Austrija bila izloena sankcijama Evropske Unije. Kao rasizam u politikom diskursu smatra se svako pominjanje neke zajednice ili naroda kao manje vrednog u odnosu na sopstveni, ili navoenje nekih njihovih osobina u tom znaenju. On moe biti eksplicitno naveden u medijima u primerima poput : ...Hrvati su genocidan narod ...ali ponekad je za njegovo otkrivanje potrebna dublja semantika analiza

22

Ja nemam nita protiv Kineza, ali je injenica da sa njihovim dolaskom nai radnici ostaju bez posla. Etnicizam u jeziku je bio relativno esta pojava u medijima za vreme trajanja ratova na prostoru bive Jugoslavije. Rut Vodak definie ovakav tip diskursa kao blai vid jezike agresije od rasistikog govora, navodei kao primer odnos Srba i Hrvata, iji su dravni mediji esto razmenjivali teke optube, ali se ona nije mogla nazvati rasistikom propagandom upravo zbog zajednikog jezika i porekla, koji nije iao u prilog tezama o biolokim superiornostima jednih u odnosu na druge. Kao posebnu jeziku strategiju desniarskih partija i njima naklonjenih medija, Pol ilton u analizi politikog diskursa, navodi implikature koje sa formalnog stanovita ne sadre negativnu poruku. Informacije, meutim, koje upuuju, recimo na nacionalnu pripadnost aktera dogaaja, manipuliu sveu publike koja se moe dovesti u zabludu da je neki incident nacionalno motivisan. Kinezi pretukli etiri oveka u Beogradu (Kurir, 2006. godina) Kada su ameriki mediji u pitanju naroito su esta meta manipulacije dogaaji iz 11. septembra i sve vladine akcije koje su esto dovodile do krenja ljudskih prava skrivajui se iza borbe protiv terorizma, praene antiislamskim stavovima, ili proglaavanjem sopstvenih politikih protivnika posrednim pomagaima terorista. Veoma je vano zapaanje Van Dijka da je, pri tom, manipulacija javnim mnjenjem efikasnija ako su svi kljuni mediji pod kontrolom manipulatora, dok se demokratizacijom medijskog prostora za manipulaciju znatno suava prostor. Kao uputstvo za izbegavanje diskriminatorskog jezika naveo bih smernice koje preporuuje Dubravka Vali-Nedeljkovi u svom Praktikumu novinarstva koji moe biti i uputstvo itaocima/gledaocima za prepoznavanje govora mrnje. U njemu se navodi i Kodeks neseksistike upotrebe jezika Svenke Savi, kao i saveti za nediskriminatorsko izvetavanje u odnosu na rasu : Spominjite neiju rasu samo ako je jako bitno Izbegavati rei koje pripadnici odreene rase smatraju uvredljivim (melez, obojen...) Ne nagaati o kulturnom poreklu osobe

23

U zborniku koji je deo meunarodnog istraivakog projekta Sppining out of controll ( U Srbiji pod imenom Intima javnosti) objavljene su studije odnosa medija prema sukobljenim stranama u svim konfliktima na prostoru bive Jugoslavije. Ono to je bio posebno obiman istraivaki zahvat jeste usmerenost na to potpuniji jeziki korpus, u kome su analizirana izvetavanja vie medija (na primer iz Srbije i Hrvatske) i na svakom od njih nain prikazivanja sopstvene i suparnike strane u ratu. Jedna od polaznih hipoteza u ovom zborniku bila je injenica da probueni agresivni naboj koji je postao jezik dravne propagande esto prerasta u spiralu nasilja, te da i sami politiari na kraju postaju zatvorenici sopstvenog diskursa. U delu projekta u kome sam uestvovao kao jedan od autora, a koji se odnosi na sukob izmeu bive jugoslovenske federacije i Slovenije na putu ove republike ka osamostaljenju, vaan metodoloki korak bio je upravo razgraniavanje govora novinara od govora drugih lica u vestima i usredsreivanje na analizu jezika samog medija kao jednog od indikatora medijske politike. Na osnovu analize prikazivanja aktera sukoba u televizijskim vestima Televizije Ljubljana i TV Beograd uoeni su poetni stadijumi govora mrnje odnosno irenja stereotipa prema pripadnicima drugog naroda sa kojima smo jo uvek tada bili, kao i decenijama pre toga, u istoj dravi. Kao deo medijske strategije priprema za rat neposredno pre vojne intervencije zapoeto je sistematsko prenoenje odgovornosti za pojedine dogaaje sa pojedinih politiara na itav narod i dravu i razvijanje negativnog stava prema njima (Slovenija i Slovenci). U drugoj studiji sluaja kojom sam se bavio a odnosi se na Masakr na Markalama, na delu su u potpunosti primenjeni mehanizmi ratne propagande, kojima se zajedno sa vojnim formacijama, i itavi narodi proglaavaju neprijateljskim, uz brojne primere irenja etnikih stereotipa. U isto vreme uspostavlja se jedinstvo izmeu medijske publike, samog medija i naroda iji se interesi propagiraju, zajedno sa njihovim politikim liderima i vojnim jedinicama koje takvu politiku sprovode u delo. U treem analiziranom konfliktu promenjen se odnos prema vojnom i politikom rukovodstvu Republike Srpske Krajine, kao jednoj od grupa aktera u sukobu, do tog vremena podranog, kao dela srpske strane, uporedo sa politikom medija koja vie ne daje bezrezervnu podrku nastavku rata, dok se stav medija prema suprotstavljenoj strani (Oni) i dalje zasniva na irenju neprijateljstva prema njihovim vojnim jedinicama, narodu i politikim liderima koji ih predvode. Najefikasnije motivaciono sredstvo koje su, tom prilikom, koristili mediji odnosi

24

se na povezivanje politikih predstavnika druge strane sa zloinakim simbolima, pokretima i idejama iz perioda Drugog svetskog rata, ekstremistikim i teroristikim organizacijama, manipuliui na taj nain ukorenjenim strahovima zasnovanim na istorijskom pamenju stanovnitva. Kada je u pitanju dananje vreme moja koleginica e vam rei neto o tome koji su mogui izvori za irenje govora mrnje. Znai jako je vano znati da li postoji odreeni kodeks, recimo novinarski, koji e spreavati novinara odnosno savetovati ih kako da to ne koriste, da li je to zakonom sankcionisano i da li neki vii zakonski akti pruaju odreenu inspiraciju za takav govor. Ja vam se zahvaljujem. Zoran Petakov: Hvala Miloe na iscrpnom prikazu. Dinko, Mi koji imamo dovoljno godina da se seamo poetka 90ih i izvetavanja domaih medija o tome kako poinje rat u ex-Yu seamo se dnevnikovih dodataka koji su trajali satima i u kojima su vrlo eksplicitno bili prikazivani leevi, ljudi koji bee iz svojih kua itd. Mi smo to gledali sa strane kao konzumenti, meutim, ono zbog ega si ti interesantan sagovornik je to si sve to vreme bio aktivni novinar i ti poznaje te ljude i sve vreme si situaciju, da tako kaem gledao iznutra. Pa bih voleo da nam malo priblii taj proces koji se odvijao na medijskom prostoru Srbije i novinarima koji su u njemu uestvovali. Definitivno je da lustracija nije sprovedena, niti e biti sprovedena niti je to sad mogue uiniti ali o tome se sada uti. Dinko Gruhonji: Hvala. Dobro vee svima. Ja sam bio isto i suvie mali da bi se bavio novinarstvom tamo krajem 80ih i samim poetkom 90ih ali kao pasionirani ljubitelj medija i u to vreme sam znao da u biti novinar. Sad me Milo svojim istraivanjima podstakao odnosno osveio mi neka seanja kad si govorio o slovenakom ratu. Priprema za taj rat je poela davno ranije, ja sam tad bio u vojsci, ono kad su Slovenci napustili legendarnu sednicu saveza komunista tad su jo bili okrivljeni da su austrijski konjuari, separatisti itd. I tad su ljudi u Srbiji, ne znam da li se toga seate, zaista je bilo dole sluajeva u Srbiji da su bacali friidere i ve maine kroz balkon i prozore u znak protesta, naravno marke Gorenje. Tako da i to smo preiveli. Preiveli smo i to to si rekao za pripremu rata u Hrvatskoj, perjanica je naravno bila televizija Novi Sad dananji tzv. Javni servis Vojvodine. Pa sve do trenutaka, iz 1995. godine, toga se seam kao da je jue bilo, i znam da je u Hrvatskoj u toku operacija Oluja, a 4 avgusta, dakle kad je poela operacija na prvom programu RTS

25

ide Ruski cirkus. Znai nita se ne deava, tad su kolone traktora jo uvek stajale na granicama Sloba (Slobodan Miloevi) ih nije jo pustio u Srbiju zato to nije doneo odluku da li e ih usmeriti ka Kosovu ili e ih pustiti u Vojvodinu. Kad sam spomenuo Vukovar, to me je podsetilo na jedan dogaaj koji se nedavno desio. Naime, veeras se otvara izloba, festival o ljudskim pravima Vivisekt. Tema je diktatorski reimi, i izmeu ostalog organizatori izlobe su traili iz arhive Dnevnika, novosadskog lista, fotografije. Poto Dnevnik ima jako bogatu arhivu fotografija iz svih tih gibanja 80ih, 90ih godina i to ne samo na prostoru ex-Yu ve i na prostoru itave bive istone Evrope. I otkrili su da jednostavno nema fotografija, nestale su, odnosno nisu nestale nego su unitene. Unitene su ne zato to je to neko namerno uradio, ve zato to je neko bio aljkav. I zato to neko nije bio svestan da je to kulturno-istorijska graa i tako da sada jedna od najbogatiji novinskih arhiva fotografija u Srbiji vie ne postoji. Ne postoje ni negativi i oni su uniteni zbog aljkavosti i neadekvatnog uvanja. Ono to je jo uvek neproverena pria da je unitena video arhiva, dobar deo video arhive televizije Novi Sad. I to je oigledno unitavano po nalogu odozgo zato to je unitavan tzv. kompromitujui materijal sa vukovarskog i slavonskog, sremskog ratita 1991. i 1992. godine. Poto tu ima vrlo zanimljivih lica i vrlo zanimljivog dokaznog materijala koji bi svakako mogao da poslui kao graa specijalnom tuilatu za ratne zloine. Pretpostavljam da ste imali prilike da ujete ili moda i da itate jednu analizu medija koja se zove Rat je poeo na Maksimiru to je ona uvena utakmica Dinamo-Crvena Zvezda. Tad sam bio u vojsci u Zagrebu tad smo sreom imali zabranu izlaska tako da nisam iao na taj derbi. Tad su se potukli navijai izmeu sebe, igrai izmeu sebe i tukli su igrai policiju bio je opti haos, nije se znalo ko je koga tukao. Nakon toga, bilo je interesentno kako su iz Beogradskog studija izvetavali Marko Markovi a iz Zagrebakog studija, jedan od dotadanjih mojih idola, kad su sportski komentatori u pitanju, Boris Muti. Tu vam je ve bilo potpuno jasno da su se oni ve stavili na stranu Tumanovog odnosno Miloevievog reima i da nedvosmisleno optuuju iskljuivo drugu stranu za to to se deavalo. Postoje takoe i vredni filmovi Lazara Lalia koji je naalost netragom nestao, odnosno ne netragom. Nego je to jo jedan dokaz kako se sa ljudima od formata postupa u ovoj dravi. Lazar Lali je uredno skupljao Dnevnike RTS odnosno tadanje RTV Beograda i od toga su napravljeni filmovi koji se zovu Godina prva , Godina druga i Godina trea. Gde zapravo imate bez ikakvih komentara, samo iseke Dnevnika i pratite genezu raspada i genezu mrnje i genezu zloina ako hoete. Tako da se sve to za onako koga to zanima moe

26

pronai. Ja to volim studentima da pokaem poto i tada od 1989. do 1991. godine pa do samog poetka rata kljuna re naravno bila, pogaate Kosovo. I onda oni mene pitaju: Profesore Vi se alite sa nama ovo je neto to je svee ovo nije iz 1989 godine.. Ja im kaem: Ne to je Dnevnik iz 1989. godine. Dakle, godine kada je i formalno ukinuta autonomija Kosova i kada je policija upadala u Rilindiju, Pritinski list. Jedino se razlikuju policijske uniforme, a komentari i sve ostalo nita se ne razlikuje i tad je to bila sveta srpska re Kosovo. Mi moemo da priamo ta god hoemo, ja jesam Jugo nostalniar, ali u medijskom smislu ne mogu da kaem da su mediji u eks Jugoslaviji bili slobodni kad nisu. Oni su bili pod jasnom ideolokom matricom kada je politika u pitanju. Kada je kultura i ostale oblasti imali su mogunosti i to su i radili da prave vrlo vredne medijske proizvode vrlo vredne dokumentarne filmove, vrlo vredne igrane filmove dok u samoj informativnoj sferi apsolutno je postojala cenzura, jasna cenzura SKJ. I kada imate takvu vrstu drila ili treninga tokom 45 godina koliko je trajao komunistiki reim onda je savreno jasno da ako se bavite informativom ako se bavite unutranjom politikom, pre svega da vama vie ne treba cenzor vi ve posedujete ip za autocenzuru upravljate se prema onome ko je na vlasti. Zoran Petakov: Da li sa tim ima veze i to da je vie od 35 hiljada ljudi koji su ostali bez posla samo u Vojvodini onog trenutka kad je Miloevi doao na vlast. Jer tu su bili i ljudi koji su bili struni u svom poslu u radu u medijima njih su prosto poistili iz svih medija. To se ne sme zaboraviti Dinko Gruhonji: Naalost ti su u pravu, ali sa druge strane to je jedna manjina novinara. Znai jedna ba ubedljiva manjina novinara koji su imali hrabrosti da se usude na takav korak i suprotstave se nacionalistikom ludilu to su oigledno bili ne samo vrhunski intelektualci nego i vrhunski profesionalci kako se to kae i ljudi koji jednostavno imaju ast i obraz i nisu hteli na to da pristanu. Jer mislim da i ko je imao i malo pameti shvatio je ta se deava. Ne zato to sam ja predsednik NDNV ali mi smo prvo nezavisno udruenje novinara na prostoru itave eks Jugoslavije. Formirano 90te godine i formirali su ga upravo ljudi od kojih su neki ovde u publici koji nisu hteli da pristanu na tu vrstu diktature i cenzure. Ovi ostali su oigledno poli linijom manjeg otpora, ili su poli ambicijom da e se konano skloniti najbolji pa da e oni loviti u mutnom i postati izvetai pod lemom, u uniformi . Bilo je tu i kojekakvih iznenaenja od ljudi za koje smo mislili da su asni i estiti da odlino rade

27

svoj posao da su se pretvorili u neku vrstu monstruma i ratnih hukaa. Ovi ostali su bili manje ili vie nikogovii koji su kroz rat oigledno kao i u svim ostalim sferama ivota jednostavno ugledali priliku da preuzmu urednike funkcije Zoran Petakov: Jo par stvari koje nisi spomenuo. Ti si bio i jo uvek si, dopisnik BETE, u to vreme agencije koja nije dravna. Znamo svi itali smo o tome kakvi su sve pritisci bili od pretnji do zatvaranja tzv. slobodnih medija, odnosno medija koji nisu bili na liniji tadanjeg reima, do ubistva pojedinih novinara koja jo uvek nisu rasvetljenja. Uvek je postojala sprega izmeu tih ljudi i opozicije koja je samo koristila politiki momenat da se iskae kao oponent reimu. Ali u nekim sluajevima su ljudi ostajali potpuno sami nezatieni, bilo koga ko bi podigao glas kad se to desi. Pre nekoliko dana je bilo deset godinina od gaenja Nae Borbe i ti si tad rekao, i ja mogu da se sloim sa tobom da je to bio jedan od najdemokratskijih da tako kaemo najslobodnijih medija u to vreme, ali je injenica da je on ugaen i da se posle toga nije skoro nita desilo. Niko nije mnogo protestovao zbog toga. Pitanje je kako se ovek osea kad radi neki posao koji voli, a na kraju ga svi ostave da se bori sam. Dinko Gruhonji: Pa ja sam rekao na toj tribini da Naa Borba po mom miljenju bila ubedljivo najbolji dnevni list koji smo mi imali ikada, dakle u istoriji srpskog tampanog novinarstva. Ne znam koliko se seate tih novina ali to su bile novine kojih se ne bi posramile ni puno vee drave sa izgraenim demokratskim sistemom. Jo jedan detalj jedna mala digresija da probamo da povuemo paralelu izmeu tog vremena i ovoga sada. Ono to sam ja zaboravio a to su me podsetili na toj tribini je da je Naa Borba imala neto to se zove nagrada za toleranciju i prve godine je nagradu za toleranciju dobio pokojni Aleksandar Tima. Druge godine je nagradu za toleranciju dobio studentski protest 96. / 97. godine i tree godine je nagradu za toleranciju, sad dobro sluajte u Beogradu dobila Unija albanskih studenata iz Pritine. To sad zvui kao neverovatan podatak jel moete sad da zamislite u ovom momentu krajem 2008. godine u Srbiji da neka dnevna novina dodeli nagradu Uniji hrvatskih studenata ili bilo kome ko ima veze sa dravama u regionu. Ja naalost ne mogu i to je ono to je rekla gospoa Latinka Perovi sama injenica da je Naa Borba uguena i ovo to si ti rekao da ni tada nije bilo, a ni sad nema ideje kako da se ona obnovi znai da naalost ne postoji u drutvu potreba za takvom. Uprkos mom

28

optimizmu da su stvari sada nakon tih osam godina tzv. demokratskih promena u medijskom smislu ak puno gore nego to su bile. Dodue nemamu vie tu vrstu politike represije kao to smo imali u vreme Vuievog zakona o informisanju, ali imamo Aleksandra Vuia na svim medijima. Nemamo vie tu vrstu politikog pritiska kao to smo imali tokom 90-ih godine, ali imamo sofisticirani ekonomski pritisak koji je vrlo jednostavan za objasniti. Dakle, u Srbiji postoji fingirano trite koje zapravo nije trite. To je trite ekvivalentno onome to se u istoriji ekonomije naziva prvobitna akumulacija kapitala sa akcentom na monopole. Znai mi smo trenutno u toj fazi ekonomskog razvoja. Imamo monopol da li gospodina Mikovia, kad je veleprodajni lanac u pitanju ili gospodina Babia, kad su lekovi u pitanju ali gde god se okrenete imate monopol. I sad, tzv. veliki mediji kao to su B92, Pink, kao to su beogradske dnevne novine pokuavaju da ive na trinim osnovama, a poto je nemogue da se ivi na trinim osnovama ako nemate trite onda se suoavate sa problemom da ukoliko piete o poreklu para Miroslava Mikovia ili Miodraga Babia u vaim medijima nema oglasa. I onda se mi pitamo to u Srbiji nema istraivakog novinarstva. Vrlo jednostavno zato to Veran Mati nee pustiti novinara, da radi istraivaki lanak jer e ostati bez nekoliko sati reklama i oglasa od strane kompanije Delta ili kompanije Hemofarm. Tokom 90-ih godina. imali smo medije zbog kojih smo bili u tom smislu fenomen, dakle mi jesmo fenomen za izuavanje i po govoru mrnje definitivno ali smo fenomen i po tome to smo imali i Nau Borbu i B92 i Nezavisni i Vreme. Nezavisni vie ne postoji, Vreme ne itam od 99. godine sem povremeno zato to sam se razoarao. B92 se silom prilika transformisao u televizuju koja je postala komercijalna, Naa Borba vie ne postoji. Ali to jesu bili estiti primeri novinarstva to jesu bili hrabri ljudi koji su se bavili u najteim vremenima izvetavanjem o najgorim moguim stvarima. Pazite Vreme je 95. godine kada je itava Srbija glumila ludilo i da ne zna ta se deava u Srebrenici, Vreme je to imalo na naslovnoj strani. Znai tekstovi i reportae Dade Vujasinovi su bili objavljivani sad pazite u Dugi za koju se ne moe rei ba da je bila neto prograanski, liberalno orijentisana ali je putala reportae. To su bile ratne reportae Dade Vujasinovi koje se danas koriste u procesima pred Hakim tribunalom. Imate njene reportae i na sajtu www.dadavujasinovic.com, to je njena sestra sve skupljala i objavila. Dakle, da je devojka, pisala sve ovo to smo mi kasnije kao otkrivali kao korpioni, sad mi od jednom 2006. godine saznajemo da su korpioni uvali naftu za Goran Hadia i za ekipu u Slavoniji pa to je Dada pisala jo 92. godine. Sve bilo apsolutno jasno. To jesu estiti primeri i ini mi se da toga sada

29

nema. Sada imamo tzv. medijski pluralizam tzv. fingirani medijski pluralizam koji na neki nain zapravo lii na ono to je trend u svetu. Znai svi mi kod kue manje vie imamo kablovske televizije gde vam se desi da prealtate onih sedamdeset kanala i da ne naete nita, apsolutno nita. Znai da nalazite samo varijacije na istu temu ne raunajui Discovery ili National Geographic tako neke zanimljive i non profit kanale. E tako i u Srbiji danas, sve super, podeljene frekvencije, cveta demokratija imate milion medija, a u stvari ne moete nita da objavite. Ja sam bio u jesen 2006. godine suoen sa najgorom cenzurom u svojoj novinarskoj karijeri. Referendum o Ustavu Srbije nije bilo nijednog medija, naalost, priznajem i potpisujem koji nije imao dil sa vladom da ne talasa. Niti jednog ja sam morao da u svojoj matinoj kui pravim gerilske akcije, da pravim talove sa urednicima za koje znam da su normalni da putamo vesti koje su protivne ustavu iza ponoi kad urednici legnu da spavaju. Ja sam to doiveo 2006. godine, a nisam to doiveo za vreme reima Slobodana Miloevia. Danas kad pogledam ukoriene primerke Nezavisnog od 97. do 99. godine pomislim da bi nas danas streljali trideset puta za ono to smo tad objavljivali. Kakve su to bile sprdnje ko je sve pisao za taj Nezavisni od Indire Vlasi do Esada Koana i sve ljudi pravovernih imena. Toga danas nema, danas postoji fingiranje medijskog pluralizma to je posledica izostanka lustracije, to je posledica opteg drutvenog trenda da se sve baci pod tepih jer potpisali smo deklaraciju o pomirenju i sve je dobro imamo i naprednjake i svetlu budunost. Zoran Petakov: Hvala ti Dinko. Mislim da nisi mogao bolji lagvort da nam da od ovog Ustava obzirom da Senka ima da kae neto ba na tu temu. Senka Gavranov: Umesto o govora o medijima ja sam reila da poemo od jednog dokumenta koji isto ima veze sa javnim govorom a pri tom je pravno konstitutivan za dravu. Uradiu jednu analizu, ne bi trebalo da bude puno bolno sa puno gramatike ali isto da vidite ta se deava i kakvi su to slojevi ispod odreenih povrinskih jezikih struktura. Preiemo preko preambule Ustava i preko prvog lana Ustava. Samo sam htela da kaem za govor mrnje da lan 49. Ustava iz 2006. godine pod nazivom Zabrana izazivanja rasne, nacionalne i verske mrnje kae: Zabranjeno je i kanjivo svako izazivanje i podsticanje rasne, nacionalne, verske ili druge neravnopravnosti mrnje i netrpeljivosti. Znai da zapamtimo zabranjeno je i kanjivo svako izazivanje i podsticanje rasne, nama je u ovom sluaju bitna nacionalna mrnja zato se vraamo

30

na preambulu Ustava. U preambuli Ustava se kae Polazei od dravne tradicije srpskog naroda i ravnopravnosti svih graana i etikih zajednica u Srbiji i onda ide onaj uveni deo sa Kosovom polazei i od toga da je Pokrajina Kosovo i Metohija sastavni deo teritorije Srbije da ima poloaj sutinske autonomije u okviru suverene drave Srbije i da iz takvog poloaja Pokrajina Kosovo i Metohija slede ustavne obaveze svih dravnih organa da zastupaju i tite dravne interese Srbije na Kosovu i Metohiji u svim unutranjim spoljnim i politikim odnosima. Graani Srbije donose Ustav Republike Srbije. Imajui u vidu da lan 49. zabranjuje bilo kakvo izazivanje i podsticanje nacionalne i verske neravnopravnosti i netrpeljivosti, ja neu da kaem da preambula i prvi lan Ustava to rade, oni to ne izazivaju nacionalnu netrpeljivost. Medjutim, ustavopisci u preambuli Ustava dozvoljavaju da odreene vrste govora koji diferenciraju graane Srbije po nacionalnoj pripadnosti, postoje zato to je sam donosilac ovog pravno-utemeljujueg akta Ustavom napravio razliku izmeu dve grupe ljudi. To izgleda ovako u preambuli Ustava u kome se kae: polazei od dravne tradicije srpskog naroda, to je znai jedan princip od kojeg se polazi, princip jedan to je tradicija. Drugi princip je ravnopravnost svih graana i etnikih zajednica. Trei princip je Kosovo i on nas u ovom uopte ne zanima. Ono to nas zanima je ta nama kau ustavotvorci dravna tradicija srpskog naroda, za koju ne znamo ta je jer nije definisana ve se verovatno oslanja na nekakav kontinuitet, ja sad mogu samo da zamislim ta je. Nisam uradila istraivanje,ali eventualno mogu da zamislim da je to neto to ima veze sa 1918. godinom ili sa Nemanjiima. To bi bila neka dravna tradicija srpskog naroda, moramo da pogaamo jer to u Ustavu nije eksplicitno definisano. Druga stvar, drugi princip je ravnopravnost svih graana i etikih zajednica ja ne znam da li su ustavotvorci ovako hteli da formuliu, da li je ovo silno moje lingvistiko cepidlaenje ali ravnopravnost svih graana i etnikih zajednica u Srbiji naprosto nije sadrano u dravnoj tradiciji prema ovakvoj jezikoj formulaciji. U redu, moe i tako priznajemo svoje greke. 1918. godine nisu postojale ideje ravnopravnosti svih etnikih zajednica, ne znam kako drugaije da protumaim, a ovaj dokument ne sme da bude ovoliko otvoren za tumaenja. Meutim, dolazimo do prvog lana Ustava u kome se kae: Republika Srbija je drava srpskog naroda i svih grana koji u njoj ive. ta ovo znai da srpski narod nije u ukljuen u svim graanima i obrnuto. Ovo obrnuto jo moe ovek i da razume nisu svi graani Srbi, dodue ne znam zato bi to bilo vano. Meutim, srpski narod mora biti deo graana. Ono to je ovde trebalo da se stavi u Ustav ako smo ve naveli srpski narod, a ne znam

31

zato smo ga navodili, znai svi ostali graani jedino tako je logiki, ali je politika implikacija mnogo opasnija. Ja ne znam da li se pravnici bave jezikim pitanjima, ali morali bi pogotovo u tom najvanijem zakonskom aktu jedne drave. Ono to je jedan od problema sa ovakvom podelom, je to bi srpska drava prema Ustavu bila unija svega ovoga: Republika Srbija je drava srpskog naroda i svih graana koji u njoj ive [...] zasnovana na vladavini prava i socijalnoj pravdi i na naelima graanske demokratije. Kako je ona zasnovana na naelima graanske demokratije i kako onda Ustav i ustavotvorci definiu graansku demokratiju ako Srbi uopte nisu graani, kao to je implicirano lingvistikim formulacijama u 1. lanu. Izmeu preambule i prvog lana koji kae: polazei od dravne tradicije srpskog naroda i ravnopravnosti svih graana i etikih zajednica u Srbiji i onda ide deo sa Kosovom, se dalje kae: graani Srbije donose Ustav Republike Srbije. Ako su ustavopisci definisali graane Srbije kao sve ostale koji nisu Srbi da li to znai da Ustav donose graani Srbije koji po definiciji iz Ustava nisu Srbi (srpski narod)? Ono na ta stvarno hou da obratite panju ako kaete da je neko drutvo graansko vi onda ne moete da delite ljude po etnikom principu vi ste izdvojili srpski narod na etnikom principu, meutim kaete da vam je drava graanska demokratija, emu tu slui etniki princip? Ako ovakve nedefinisane pojmove imamo u Ustavu, ako se ljudi dele prema nacionalnoj osnovi u najviem konstitutivnom aktu jedne drave zato se onda pitamo i dikutujemo o tome zato novinari piu tako kako piu. Zato se kada je kriminalac, recimo romske nacionalnosti uvek napie da je neko Rom, a kada je to Srbin onda se to ne napie. I sad, itajte svaki dan u est razliitih asopisa da je kriminalac, lopov, silovatelj Rom ili Albanac. Vi ete to onda da krenete da pamtite kao nekakvu matricu to postane deo drutvene svesti, mentalne percepcije o celoj jednoj grupi ljudi: Romi, Albanci i ostali ne-Srbi ubijaju. A ostali kad ubijaju, siluju su nacionalno neodredjeni. Dvostruki standardi u izvetavanju. Na kraju krajeva, ili na poetku svega, zato je uopte relevantno ko je koje nacije? Kad je to relevantno? Relevantno je kada je neko rtva zloina mrnje, kada je neko pretuen zato to je Rom ako je njegova etnika pripadnost bila motiv za taj zloin. Verujem kada bi neko seo i uradio jako ozbiljnu jeziku analizu da bi se tano moglo videti koje su to politike strukture koje su insistirale na tome da se uvede re srpsko, srpski narod u Ustav. Verovatno da je to bio DSS. Gde su pokuavali da pomire tzv. graansko demokratsku struju meu ustavopiscima i onu koja je nacionalistika. Ako vi napravite lan 49. u kojoj zabranjujete netrpeljivost samo kad je direktna i eksplicitna a dozvolite da se ljudi dele po nacionalnom kljuu implicitno

32

u Ustavu onda sami sebi skaete u stomak, i pri tom ste drutveno neodgovorni jer aljete oprene signale. Podela stanovnika Srbije na srpski narod i graane nije govor mrnje jo jednom govorim, preambula i prvi lan Ustava nisu govor mrnje, ali su oni taj pogled na svet, na drutvo, na dravu i implicitno dozvoljavaju razvijanje govora mrnje kroz recikliranje podela ljudi prema nacionalnoj pripadnosti. Toliko za sad. Zoran Petakov: Hvala Senka. eleo bih da ti postavim jo jedno pitaje jer znam da si se i time bavila a sad si se i dotakla toga u jednom trenutku. Kada se recimo u Srbiji sukobe dve grupe mladia, pa je neko pretuen neko je uboden noem.Onda se u vestima pojavi da su se u sukobu dve grupe mladia u kojem je koriteno hladno oruje povreeno dvoje ljudi. Meutim kada se sukobe negde gde je izmeano stanovnitvo onda se uopte nisu sukobile dve grupe mladia nego su se sukobili npr. Srbi i Maari. Znai to to si ti primetila primeujemo svaki dan u odreenim medijima. Kako to moe da deluje, to si poela da pria pa bi voleo da nastavi o tome, na nekog ko svaki dan slua takve stvari ili bolje rei konzumira. Senka Gavranov: lanovi Ustava koji se tiu spreavanja diskriminacije su veoma dobri. Meutim, ako imate preambulu i prvi lan od kojeg polazite i definiete svoju dravu na jedan nain naprosto mi deluje licemerno da ste posle tvrdili neto drugo. A to se tie diskurzivne prakse i izvetavanja medija kad doe do sukoba na nacionalnoj, rasnoj osnovi, zbog neijeg seksualnog opredeljenja i ostalog tu postoji, par stvari i par strategija koje su ve prouavane u drugim medijima. Jedna od strategija je manipulacija aktiva i pasiva i ukoliko uzmimo primer: Amerikanci su bombardovali Irak ako hoemo da kaemo u medijskom diskursu i ako elimo da iznesemo tanu vest rei emo: Amerikanci su bombardovali Irak. Tu se zna ko je vrio odreeni akt ko preuzima odgovornost za to to je uraeno: subjekat reenice, odnosno Amerikanci. Ako hoemo da izbegnemo imenovanje aktera, subjekta, odgovornih osoba ili grupa, rei emo: Irak je bombardovan. Naprosto prebacimo reenicu u pasiv. Ako hoemo potpuno da izbriemo bilo kakvu odgovornost iskoristiemo bezlinu formu, glagol bezlini i rei emo: Bombardovanje Iraka se desilo. To ete uti i za ratove na prostorima bive Jugoslavije gde e se rei: Desio se rat. Rat se ne desi, postoje akteri postoje rtve. To je manipulacija aktivom i pasivom ili kad je u pitanju nominalizacija. Od glagola bombardovati npr .Amerikanci su bombardovali..., napravi se imenica bombardovanje (Iraka) gerundiv, ustvari glagolska imenica. ta

33

mi saznamo iz ovakve konstrukcije? Da se bombradovanje desilo. Dobili smo deo informacije. Da bi se ovakvo, u sutini pristrasno, a nikako objektivno izvetavanje izbeglo, naprosto mora da se kae kae se ko je uradio ta. Stane se iza svoje rei i svog dela. Morate da budete za neto odgovorni ljudi se ne pretuku sami kao to bi se iz izvetavanja medija nekad dalo zakljuiti. Jo jedan primer u seksistikom govoru, zamislite da mu pretue enu, ona lei onesveena, on zove hitnu pomo i ne kae Ja sam pretukao enu ve Moja ena je pretuena. Znai izbegne odgovornost, pa i kaznu za ono to je uradio. Zoran Petakov: Hvala ti Senka. Naravno sad su na redu vaa pitanja ukoliko ih ima. Izvolite. Pitanje 1 (Branislava Kosti): Vratimo se govoru mrnje. Ovde smo uli sjajna izlaganja ali ja bih jako velela da se vratimo temi. Pa krenemo recimo od primera koje smo uli veeras. Problem govora mrnje je to je strano lepljiv i to to stvara kontekst govora mrnje. ta je ovde problem? Prvo, mediji postoje na tritu, rekoste i sami, odnosno neophodna su neka sredstva. U diktatorskim reimima obezbeuje ih svojim kanalima sam reim a u navodno demokratskim drutvima finansiraju se na tritu. Dinko, zato su mediji 95. godine mogli da piu to to smo pisali, sve te godine? Zato to su dobijali pare iz inostranstva to je tako jednostavno. Danas nemamo vie tih para pa mora Big Brother, Trijumf i sve ostalo da bude na B92. Zato je govor mrnje ovde bitan? ta je on uradio raspadu Jugoslavije? Uradio je jednu kljunu stvar, 89. godine tanije krajem 89. godine istraivanje javnog mnjenja uraena na teritoriji cele ex-Yu, validan uzorak u svim Republikama i Pokrajinama, pokazivao je 79% graana te tadanje SFRJ je bio za opstanak u toj dravi. Nacionalna distanca je bila na marginama osim prema Albancima i Romima i to ne u svim sredinama. Znai, nauka bi rekla ovde ne moe da doe do nacionalnog sukoba, etnikog sukoba, ne moe da doe. Ista stvar je vaila i u Bosni. Je li dolo do krvavog rata u Bosni? Jeste. Kako se desilo da su za godinu dana ti isti graani te iste SFRJ krenuli da se ubijaju. To je sad problem. To je pitanje govora mrnje. Kako je govor mrnje postao tako moan? Kako su mediji mogli za godinu dana potpuno da preokrenu javno mnjenje? Kako su to mediji uradili? Dinko je rekao jedan deo toga. ta je problem sa naim govorom sada u medijima? Ako je u drutvu govor mrnje doputen, a doputen je, onda je doputen i u medijima. Ajde sad da budemo jasni; govor mrnje Ustavom nije

34

doputen, postoje tri zakona koji reguliu medije u naoj zemlji: Zakon o radio difuziji, Zakon o telekomunikacijama i Zakon o javnom informisanju. Svi izriito zabranjuju govor mrnje, ali ima jedno veliko ALI. Svi zabranjuju govor mrnje ali nema sankcije za to. Govor mrnje, kad se pojavi na jednoj strani izaziva govor mrnje i na drugim stranama, da kaemo u mnoini. Medijski sistem Srbije isto kao i Hrvatske i drugih delova koji su nastali iz bive Jugoslavije takoe je nastajao u ratnim uslovima kao posledicu toga imamo da govor koji u svim zemljama od kako uopte postoje zemlje, drave uobiajeno i normalno da u vreme ratnih konflikata neprijatelj postaje onaj koji je naa suprotnost i svojim graanima moramo da objasnimo da je asno, da je poteno, da je bitno, da je obavezujue da se borimo protiv neprijatelja. Neprijatelj je uvek olienje zla u svim ratovima u svim zemljama bitno je da njihovo javno mnjenje da pone da percipira neprijatelja kao olienje zla. U SFRJ se 89. i 90. godine desilo da govor mrnje u svim sadanjim zasebnim dravama, nekada republikama imao samo jedan cilj, a to je da stigmatizacijom makar i kroz izmiljanje novih termina onu drugu stranu okarakterie ne samo kao neprijatelja ve kao olienje zla. Pa su za Hrvate Srbi bili koljai, a za Srbe Hrvati su bili koljai i ako su uz potpuno istu muziku kretali jedni na druge. Znate ona pesma koja se u Srbiji peva kao Marirala, marirala kralja Petra garda u Hrvatskoj je u isto vreme pevana kao u boj u boj za narod svoj na potpuno istu melodiju. Cilj medija odnosno govora mrnje bio i sad je okarakterisati drugu stranu kao zlo kao neto protiv ega ovek treba da ima otpor iako je astan treba protiv toga da se bori. Govor mrnje je uvek signal, a vrlo esto je i okida za pravo na injenja zla drugoj strani. Problem govora mrnje uvek je isti. Onoga ko je suprotan od nas onoga ko je ONI bez obzira da li je druge vere, nacije ili samo mislio drugaije govorom mrnje okarakteriemo kao zlo. Protiv koga ova naa strana treba da se bori svim sredstvima. To je govor koji je jo uvek prisutan ovde jer u naem politikom govoru ali na alost generalno u naem javnom govoru jo uvek postoji taj relikt ratnog javnog govora, a to je da je svaki neistomiljenik istovremeno neprijatelj, a prema tome on nije ljudsko bie on nije vredan ovek. Dinko Gruhonji: Ti se sea sigurno, a ja kao Bosanac to i znam da je jedan od prvih ciljeva bive JNA u BiH bilo zauzimanje repetitora. Ponoviu oni su prvo zauzeli repetitore pa su se desile posle toga i Prijedor i Sarajevo i Srebrenica. U mojoj Banja Luci u kojoj smo tada gledali, do tad gledali iz isto geografskih razloga, TV Sarajevo 1 i 2 i TV Zagreb 1 i 2, zato to nam je Zagreb blie od Beograda. Od jednom smo

35

dobili TV Beograd u jesen 91. godine. Ja isto nisam sklon da krivim medije, mediji su zapravo tu bili samo no ili eki u rukama politiara. Zato su oni ba zauzeli repetitor? Neki dan sam uo podatak iz istraivanja da ljudi u Srbiji danas televizuju gledaju u proseku neto manje od 5 sati dnevno. Meni je to zastraujui podatak to je horor. Tako da je televizija postala i tada je bila instant za va ivot. U tradiciji autoritarnih reima i u tradiciji naroda koji su izloeni takvim reimima TV ima isti autoritet kao to ima vlast. Jer oni percipiraju TV kao neosporni autoritet preko koga vam se obraa predsednik drave. A kao to je poznato u tradicijama ovih naroda drava je majka. A majku se ima sluati, pa samim tim TV se ima sluati. Pa e te i danas uti kad pria neki priprost ovek neku neverovatnu priu a vi ga pitate odakle to zna on e rei : Reklo je na televiziji. Pazite to bezlino to itekako ima veze. E zato su oni zbog tog reklo je na televiziji osvojili prvo repetitore da bi ovo sve posle toga bilo mogue u BiH u Hrvatskoj itd. Krivina odgovornost za novinare to je pitanje koje smo mi isto kao udruenje i posle 5 oktobra postavljali kao neku vrstu lakmus papira i probnog balona. Osnovna stvar recimo niko pred Hakim tribunalom sem Florens Artman koja e na prolee da odgovara ali iz nekih drugih razloga, niko pred Hakim tribunalom nije optuen od novinara sa prostora bive Jugoslavije. Ja sam sa ljudima iz tribunala priao i oni kau da je bilo pokuaja da se saini optunica protiv perjanica ratne propagande kakvih je naalost bilo dosta. Meutim, tu je trik, po njihovom pravnikom razmiljanju, zapravo u tome to mora da se dokae njihova krivina odgovornost. Sad plastino da pokaem direktnu vezu izmee Milijane Baleti one legendarne scene kad dolazi da pravi reportau iznad Dubrovnika izmeu toga to je ona izgovorila i konkretne rtve granate koju je taj vojnik ispalio. Eto to je ta pravna zakoljica kada su novinari u pitanju. Za razliku od bive Jugoslavije, tribunal za Ruandu je osudio dvojicu novinara. Tamo je bila izvesna radio stanica koja je otvoreno pozivala na genocid, oni su otvoreno, ovi nai su se kao neto uvijali, ali ovi su otvoreno ubijte ih kao bubavabe, ne ubijajte ih pukama nego koristite maete znai otvorena uputstva za ubistvo i oni nisu imali problema da podignu optunicu protiv te dvojice idiota. Nisu imali problem zato to je dokaza bilo na pretek i mogli su da povuku tu paralelu izmeu onoga to su ovi govorili na radiju i onoga to je bila konkretna akcija na terenu a to je rezultiralo sa blizu milion ubijenih. to se tie govora mrnje i ovoga to ti kae moram priznatio da se u finesama ne slaem sa tobom. To je kao ono kad Peru Lukovia opuuju, to je bila divna scena u

36

koli za demokratiju Helsinkohg odbora za ljudska prava Pera je doao verovali ili ne da dri predavanmje mladim studentima o govoru mrnje. I krene Pera u epopeju sve po spisku konkretna imena i majku i oca, ova deca koja imaju 17, 18 godina oni gledaju i ne mogu da veruju. Oni ne znaju ko je Pera Lukovi ne znaju genezu uopte o sluaju i zavri Pera predavanje i ree: Ajmo sad ko ima pitanja?. Oni tako pokunjeni, tek jedan tako deko stidljivo die ruku izvinite gospodine Lukoviu a da li je to sad to ste vi koristili govor mrnje kae Pera: Nije, ti e meni da je to govor mrnje, jo napadne deka. Pera je zapravo neka vrsta megafona onoga to svi mi mislimo. Ja ivim u drutvu gde mi je komija ispod mene bivi novinar TVNS dobro poznati huka, on ivi u mojoj zgradi ispod mene uiva u penzionerskim danima, komija iznad mene bivi oficir Uikog korpusa o kojem neu da troim rei ta je uradio. Dakle, ja ivim u sendviu izmeu potpukovnika i ratnog hukaa i sad da ne upotrebljavam govor mrnje pa ja ga ne bih upotrebljavao da su oni krivino odgovarali ili moralno odgovarali ali kao ovek ja moram da upoterebljavam takav govor. I uvek se setim i iskoristim to kao zgodan argument za odbranu od toga, recimo kad su Tomasa Mana pitali o nacistima on bi psovao. Zato? Kad su ga pitali zato psujete gospodine Tomase Mane kad ste vi otac moderne nemaeke knjievnosti, nemakog jezika on kae zato to stoka i bagra drugi jezik ne razume. To to ovo drutvo nije bilo dovoljno jako da izvri lustraciju, barem lustraciju u pravosuu, danas jedemo plodove toga. Mi ivimo u drutvu u kojem je savreno normalno zvati Mladena Obradovia iz Obraza ili Firera i to u bioskopu Rex i zovu mene da uestvujem tu kao da budem druga strana. Kome druga strana? Pa MUP Srbije ovakav kakva jeste njih okarakterisao kao klero faistike i neo nacistike organizacije. Nije sloboda govora dati faistima pravo da govore. Faisti su neprijatelji demokratije koji zasluuju pendrek . A ne da ga dovodite na medije i da se onda mene optuuje kako ja koristim govor mrnje prema bitangama. Pa koristiu ga uvek. To to Komrakov nije lustriran, krivino nije odgovarao da sad budem maksimalno patetian za svu onu neja koju su pobili to nije moja krivica, ali poto ja to znam poto sam bio svedok vremena kao graanin imam pravo da barem kaem javno ko je taj ovek i da pri tom ne budem optuen za govor mrnje. Hvala. Senka Gavranov: Govor mrnje morate biti jako jasni to je upereno protiv grupa ili pojedinaca koji pripadaju grupi koja je recimo razliita po rasi, etnicitetu, seksualnoj orijentaciji, po polu, po godinama ili koja pripada drugoj lingvistikoj grupi. Ja na

37

primer nikog ne bih ni uvredila, ja ne verujem da bi nekome mogla da kaem da je krava ili konj ili neto slino naprosto ne mogu ali to je i dalje uvreda to nije govor mrnje. Zato to je ono ega se ja bojim banalizacija govora mrnje to je druga strana. Ja vas razumem ali vi moete ovde da se pozivate na kulturu, potovanje jedni drugih, na kurtoaziju, na etiku, na bilo ta drugo ali ne moete na govor mrnje u sluaju Dinka Gruhonjia . Ja se slaem da se ne koriste rune rei da se ne koriste uvrede. Ali ne smete uvredu nazvati govorom mrnje jer ste je trivijalizovali. Branislava Kosti: Jezike analize govora mrnje pokazuju zaista da ima kod nas dosta meanja stigmi koje imaju, koje su na privatnoj osnovi i ostalo sa govorom mrnje. Ali nai zakoni koji se tiu medija vrlo su precizni u tom definisanju govora mrnje. Ponavljam ono to je kod nas problem i to Dinko sa pravom kae to je ne samo da nije bilo lustracije ve prosto naa javnost nije bila spremna da uradi analizu delovanja medija na jedan krajnje transparentan nain. Ovo opravdanje koje je rekao Dinko potpuno potujem ali sa druge strane neko e verovatno imati hrabrosti u nekom momentu da postavi pitanje. Da li zaista Pera Lukovi u ime svega onoga ime nas je sve zajedno zaduio u nekom drugom vremenu ima neogranieno pravo vreanja svi onih koji mu u datom momentu dou pod ruku. Ali to nije tema ove tribine. Dinko Gruhonji: Pera Lukovi je pisao anr tokom 90ih, Pera Lukovi je oduvek takav. Sad neu da budem ovde advokat Pere Lukovia, ali ono to hou da kaem je da je Miodrag Popov u post peto oktobarskoj Srbiji dobio sluaj protiv Pere Lukovia na sudu. Taj isti Miodrag Popov to je doao u uniformi to je izvetavao sa onim lemom. I sad Pera doe i kae pa ljudi moji da li ste vi normalni, na sebi svojstven nain, pa taj je ovek bio ratni huka. To je jauk, arlauk koji je on imao hrabrosti da umesto mene izgovori. I ovaj ga tui za uvredu i klevetu i dobije i nikom nita. Ne samo nikom nita nego Pera Lukovi posle 5 oktobra vie nije mogao nigde u Srbiji da objavljuje. Niko nije hteo da objavljuje Perine tekstove. Znai objavljivao u Feralu, objavljivao u BiH Danima i evo sad ima e-novine. Tako da opet se vraam priu oko nepravde, a Pera je uvek tako pisao. I ona orava kutija ako se sea u Vremenu, a sea se to je bila sotira tako se zove taj knjievni anr. Znai, neka vrsta teke satire u kojoj je delio uloge tadanjim politiarima i sprdao se sa njima na jedan jako zabavan nain i Feral mu je izdao knjigu koja se zove Godine raspada koja moe da slui kao

38

neka vrsta zanimljive istorije ovih prostora. On je oduvek tako pisao, ak bi mogao i sa pozicije knjievnog anra da ga branim i da kaem da to nije mrnja. Milo Pankov: Evo i ja bih hteo da odgovorim na deo pitanja koji se tie te uvene dileme kako su narodi od jednom postali rtve govora mrnje. Jedan deo mog istraivanja se naravno odnosio i na to ja nisam detaljnije o tome govorio u uvodnom izlaganju. Ali ako emo ve o tome govoriti postoji precizna hronologija koji su bili stepeni u razvijanju tih stereotipa. U prvobitnoj fazi kada se bavimo analizom odreenih aktera i radnji u sukobu kad polazimo od nekih neutralnih novinarskih formi, normalno je rei da su vojne formacije izvrile neke operacije ili da je neto uraeno i da su dve vojske konkretno na bojnom polju u nekoj akciji to je jedna situacija potpuno neutralna i to nije neto to je nenormalno. Dakle, postoje i takvi naini ratnog izvetavanja. Meutim, ono to su prvi znaci govora mrnje kada pone da se koristi umesto konkretnik linosti ,evo kad je u pitanju slovenaki rat Kuan ili slovenako rukovodstvo itd., slovenci su takvi oni nas ne vole oni hoe da se ocepe, pa zatim pone polako da se koristi itava Slovenija je takva. Na suprotnoj strani imamo takoe fenomen balkanizama. Dakle u zapadnim medijima uopte u zapadnom diskursu postoji taj fenomen orijentalizma, kako ga je nazvao Said, a koji takoe primenjivan na prostorima bive Jugoslavije kada se napravio stereotip Balkana i balkanizma gde su stanovnici Srbije i navodno primitivnijih republika postali rtve takvog stereotipa. Primitivni ljudi koji nisu dovoljno dobri za Evropu koji nisu dorasli evropskom drutvu i to je neto to je primenjivala recimo slovenaka televizija. Dotle se stiglo u desetodnevnom ratu koji je veoma kratko trajao i zavrio se tako da su se domai politiari i sa slovenake i sa srpske strane ponaali kao da ele sve da zaborave. Podeljene su teritorije podeljena je vojska i dalje su svi ili svojim putem. Dalje faze su primenjivane u BiH i Hrvatskoj na taj nain to su od odgovornosti itavih naroda i drava poele da se prave odreene metafore. Tu ve bili muslimani nego su bili mudahedini, recimo nisu vie bili Srbi ve su bili etnici itd. Da se vratim na ovu socio-kognitivnu teoriju Van Dika jedno moje zapaanje koje se dosta oslanja na njegove teorijske postavke jeste da je motivacija za taj govor mrnje upravo ukorenjeni strahovi i istorijsko pamenje stanovnitva. Namerno su birani pojedini izrazi i pojedini motivi koji su ostali u nekom istorijskom pamenju iz vremena Drugog svetskog rata npr. koji su mogli da se iskoriste u pojedinom momentu i da ponovo pokrenu te stare strahove i da poseju meu ljudima mrnju. Naravno poto je izvrena odgovarajua

39

medijska vojna i druga priprema. Zoran Petakov: Dobro mislim da se vie niko ne javlja za pitanja ili konstataciju? Ne. Dobro. Hvala vam to se bili. Sledee nedelje u isto vreme na istom mestu se bavimo takoe govorom mrnje ali ovaj put posle 5 oktobra 2000. godine na koji nain se govor mrnje i dalje koristi u naim medijima posle tzv. demokratizacije drutva i pobede tzv. demokratskih snaga na izborima 2000. godine.

40

Transkript tribine: GOVOR MRNJE U MEDIJIMA: SRBIJA POSLE 5. OKTOBRA

16. 12. 2008 Omladinski centar CK13

Uesnici: Teofil Pani (novinar asopisa Vreme, Beograd) Tomislav Markovi (zamenik glavnog urednika web magazina e-novine, Beograd) Petar Atanackovi (istoriar, Novi Sad) Moderator: Milo Perovi (sociolog, Novi Sad)

41

Milo Perovi: Dobro vee i dobrodoli na drugu tribinu u vezi govora mrnje koju organizuje Omladinski Centar CK 13. Ovoga puta su sa nama Teofil Pani, novinar i kolumnista nedeljnika Vreme, Tomislav Markovi, takoe novinar i zamenik urednika e-novina i gospodin Pavel Domonji je bio spreen da doe, pa e ga ovaj put zameniti Petar Atanackovi, istoriar i takoe saradnik e novina. Dakle, proli put smo definisali pojam govora mrnje i priano je o govoru mrnje u medijima u doba ratova u eks Jugoslaviji i nekakav zakljuak je bio da je, da smo tada mogli da vidimo drastian primer kako ono to poinje u javnom govoru na kraju prelazi u dela sa nesagledivim posledicama. Dakle, danas, poto smo obradili taj period nae blie istorije ovoga puta emo priati o govoru mrnje u medijima nakon 2000. godine i takozvanih demokratskih promena u srpskom drutvu. Prvo pitanje sa kojim bih ja poeo i koje bih postavio gospodinu Paniu, je, dakle, ta se promenilo u javnom govoru nakon 2000. godine, poto ini se da je forma promenjena ali ne i sutina, ponekad se ak ini da je situacija jo gora nego devedesetih i da je danas puno opasnije kritiki nastupati spram nacionalistike ideologije i njenih medijskih agitatora. Dakle, ta se i da li se neto bitno promenilo u javnom govoru nakon 2000. godine. Teofil Pani: Pa bilo bi dosta teko odgovoriti na to pitanje nekako jednoznano nekim prostim da ili ne, pa to onda obrazloiti u nekoliko reenica. Meni se ini da su tu stvari dosta komplikovanije. Dakle, s jedne strane svakako da je period posle 5. oktobra obeleen daleko veom slobodom javnog govora i nekakvim izraenijim medijskim pluralizmom i time da su recimo pale, uslovno reeno, neke tvrave dotadanje, je li, najtvrih medija reimskih koji su postojali i koji su kontaminirali javni prostor i to izgleda kao neka forma uspeha. I to je neto to je moda u neko prvo vreme nakon 5. oktobra funkcionisalo. Meutim, pokazalo se brzo da zapravo imperija uzvraa udarac dosta uspeno. Uzvraa ga na nekoliko naina. Jedan od naina je pojava ovih potpuno trovakih, kvazipolitikih tabloida koji su zapravo premreili prostor. Ti ako pogleda u devedesetim godinama tih tabloida praktino nije bilo. Svi su oni fenomen dvehiljadite. Uzmi Kurir, Nacional, onaj sad pokojni Press, mislim sve te varijante, kako se zvao onaj, Centar, mislim sva ta uda, sve je to zapravo nastalo u tom post petooktobarskom periodu, ak veina toga u periodu posle smrti, odnosno ubistva Zorana inia. Dakle, to je nain na koji ono to je ranije ireno pre svega preko RTS ili Politike i tako dalje se sada preselilo u tabloide, a preselilo se na drugi

42

nain i na internet, ali o tome emo kasnije, je li. I mislim da je u tom smislu taj neki govor mrnje zapravo dobio, ja to kaem on se preselio u taj udesni svet privatluka i dobio ak dodatni zamah i dobio jednu formu koja je do te mere usmerena ka onim najniim instinktima mase, da je u tom smislu daleko efikasniji i prodorniji od onoga to je bio ranije. U tom smislu mi se ini da je uinjen neki korak unazad. Naravno, neko bi sad mogao rei, ali to ti je jedna nus pojava slobode. Ima i u tome neke istine. Ali, ova vrsta slobode ti je sloboda bez suvislih pravila. Kao kad ne bi razlikovao fudbalsku utakmicu koja se bazira na izvesnim pravilima koja se moraju potovati u interesu svih strana, je li, kad bi to recimo poistovetio sa time da dou neka 22 klipana na livadu pa krenu da se biju. I sad kae, dobro, pa to je mislim legitimno, doli ljudi da se biju i imaju pravo na to. Pa dobro, nemaju! Mislim, ako elimo da ivimo u suvislo ureenoj drutvenoj zajednici, onda zapravo nemaju. Dakle, moraju da postoje neka elementarna pravila igre, ne u smislu da se sad neko igra velikog cenzora, nego u tom smislu da se zna ta su stvari koje prosto etiki i civilizacijski nije doputeno initi drugim ljudima. I to je ono gde je zapravo srpska medijska scena pala. Dakle, ona je pala na toj taki da je jedan infantilni izgovor za sve pa ljudi tako ele ili svako ima pravo na svoje miljenje, pa ne znam, neko je za genocide, neko protiv, pa su to sad dva ravnopravna miljenja, pa emo mi sad da razgovaramo o tome i tome slino. Znai ta vrsta pseudo debatnog nihilistikog pristupa u kojem su sve vrednosti izjednaene to zapravo nije nita drugo nego zapravo ukidanje svake mogunosti da nekakve vrednosti uopte postoje u drutvu, to je ono to je za mene generalna slika nakon 5. oktobra. Dakle, ako smo do 5. oktobra imali jedan centar moi koji je bio uasan, pa smo mogli lepo da ga mrzimo, je li, ovaj i koji je diktirao, dominirao, cenzurisao, koji je usmeravao jedan dobar deo medijske scene na svoj nain, nakon 5. oktobra dolo je do njegove decentralizacije i njegovog seljenja u takozvani privatni sector gde je on mnogo manje ranjiv jer on nema jednu glavu i ti nema jednog odreenog, jasno fiksiranog neprijatelja kao to si imao u vreme Miloevia i on zapravo moe da se iri na sve strane. Naravno, da se razumemo pokazuje se i da ta vrsta govora uvek ima dovoljno konzumenata, to takoe nije za zanemarivanje ovaj put. Milo Perovi: Da, upravo delom ovih odgovora je dat dobar lagvort za sledee pitanje koje u postaviti gospodinu Atanackoviu, a to je upravo to o emu je Teofil malopre priao da je nakon 2000. na delu eksplozija te takozvane politike ute

43

tampe u kojoj moemo nai neke od najdrastinijih primera govora mrnje. Koje drutvene snage po tvom miljenju stoje iza ove vrste medija i koliki je njihov uticaj na kreiranje javnog mnenja? Petar Atanackovi: To je sad teko pitanje koje snage stoje iza toga. Teofil je rekao da je posle 2000. dolo do pojave preseljenja iz dravne u privatnu sferu. Znai to vie nisu dravni mediji, u pitanju su privatni mediji i onda se naravno postavlja pitanje porekla kapitala koji je uloen u medije. Kurir, Glas Javnosti, Press, Pravda i tako daljeznai postavlja se pitanje njihovog naina rada. A njihov nain rada je daleko od ne samo profesionalne etike, ne samo od profesionalnog novinarskog kodeksa, nego od bilo kakve etike. Oni su prvi, ini mi se, uveli sistem naruivanja tekstova, pisanja tekstova po porudbini, da se dakle plati medijima, oni napiu i objave tekst, povedu kampanju, zavisno od toga koliko novca se investira u poduhvat. Moemo samo da nagaamo ko stoji iza toga. To su neke parastrukture koje su naroito do izraaja dole u periodu prve i druge vlade Vojislava Kotunice, mada njihov zaetak imamo u vreme vlasti Zorana inia. Uostalom, ovakvi mediji su igrali znaajnu ulogu u kampanjama protiv samog inia, za koje znamo kako se se okonale dakle, ubistvom. to se tie same ute tampe, ona ne predstavlja novost u Srbiji istinu govorei, nije je bilo u ovakvom obliku dugo vremena, pa i decenija. Istina, postojalo je izmeu dva svetska rata neto slino ovome, tabloidi kao to su bili Beogradski dnevnik i Balkan. Ako se svi vratimo par godina unazad setiemo se da je pre par godina egzistirao jedan istoimeni list tabloidnih tendencija. Ja sam imao prilike da prelistavam te stare brojeve Balkana iz 35., 36.37. i da ih poredim sa ovim dananjim tabloidima i ini mi se da je neko od njihovih urednika ili finansijera stvarno itao neto od te stare ute tampe. Mada, sasvim je mogue i da nije po sredi taj sluaj, ve, kako je rekao Toma malopre kada smo razgovarali, da imamo na delu ponavljanje jedne te iste matrice. Dakle, u toku tridesetih godina tabloidi su pisali vrlo slino dananjim. Na jednak nain su vodili kampanje protiv politiara i irili govor mrnje, sa tom razlikom to je u tadanjim tabloidima dominirala neka antisemitska tematika. to je, ini mi se nekako i bilo logino, s obzirom na porast znaaja antisemitizma nakon trijumfa nacizma u Nemakoj. Tako su i tadanje jugoslovenske novine, konkretno Balkan, neprestano donosile napise o tome ko je kriv za propast, na primer, naih obuara, kako Jevreji sabotiraju nau privredu i sve u tom duhu. Ako posmatramo stvari na taj

44

nain, irenje govora mrnje naprosto ne predstavlja novost. Ono to zabrinjava jeste da je u odnosu na Balkan iz 38. prolo sedamdeset godina, a da se i dalje koriste isti obrasci, da se pie na isti nain, gotovo isti jezik se koristi, to je injenica koja zabrinjava. Naravno, javno mnenje je takvo kakvo jeste, podaci govore da u Srbiji ima 3-5% nepismenih, meutim, ta istraivanja nepismenosti i popisi nikada ne analiziraju koji procenat od ovih 95% pismenih predstavljaju stvarno funkcionalno pismeni ljudi, oni koji razumeju kontekst proitanog. Upravo taj drutveni kontekst delovanja medija, opta zaostalost i polupismenost, predstavljaju po mom miljenju glavni problem, jer u takvim okolnostima spomenute parastrukture imaju idealne uslove za delovanje. Milo Perovi: Da, kad si ve pomenuo ovaj kampanje kao jedan oblik govora mrnje kojim se slue tabloidi, upravo nedavno smo mogli svedoiti jednoj takvoj kampanji koja je pokrenuta protiv Helsinkog Odbora u Srbiji, tj., preciznije protiv njene predsednice Sonje Biserko koja je bila izloena ba najoitijem primeru govora mrnje koji je najveim delom poticao upravo iz tih tabloida. Povod za te napade je bio godinji izvetaj Helsinkog Odbora o stanju ljudskih prava u Srbiji za 2007. godinu i ovo pitanje bi bilo upueno gospodinu Markoviu: ta je, po vaem miljenju, bio povod za ove napade i iz kojih krugova oni dolaze i koja je njihova metodologija? Ako moete to da analizirate. Tomislav Markovi: Pa zapravo taj izvetaj HO je stajao mesecima na sajtu HO i niko se time nije bavio, sve do onog trenutka dok Slobodanu Antoniu zvanom Ruho nije ponestalo tema, ili je imao neke dublje razloge da pokrene tu kampanju. On je inae poznat po tome to svako malo pronalazi neprijatelje koje treba istrebiti na svakom koraku. Meni su bile zanimljive prethodne kampanje koje je on radio protiv Peanika, proglasivi sve sluaoce Peanika sektom. To je onako dosta zanimljiv izbor rei. On je tvrdio kako se sluaoci Peanika petkom okupljaju da sluaju Peanik. To je isto dosta bizarna stvar, poto koliko ja znam, okupljanje to je kad se vie ljudi skupi na jednom mestu, a Peanik se slua na radiju, ne puta se preko razglasa na Trgu Republike... Teofil Pani: ...za sada..

45

Tomislav Markovi: za sada, ali postoji indicija da e se to promeniti. I zanimljiv je taj izbor rei sekta, znai ne kae se sekta nego mala verska zajednica. On je pokuao tom odrednicom da njih negativno legitimie, da njih proglasi nekom vrstom neprijatelja koje naravno treba istrebiti. Em su politiki neprijatelji koji se okupljaju oko jedne emisije i njegovi politiki neistomiljenici s jedne strane, a s druge strane nisu samo to, nego su i sekta, dakle neka paralelna verska, poluverska organizacija sa kojom zna se kako se treba obraunati. Jo jedna zanimljiva stvar je, on je za pripadnike druge Srbije upotrebio re zombi i to je pokuaj da se ljudi sa kojima on ne deli isto miljenje proglase za neku vrstu ne ljudi, zapravo za neto drugo, za neto to nije ljudsko I da ih se tako stavi izvan politikog poretka. To je neto slino kao to su nacisti radili u svojoj antisemitskoj propaganda tridesetih godina. Oni su tako Jevreje proglaavali za razne vrste ivuljki, a ivuljke treba istrebljivati. Ta retorika je vrlo esta kod nae ekstremne desnice. Neto slino je upotrebio Emir Kusturica ini mi se, iji je primer takoe zanimljiv. On je ljude nazvao mievima na onom uvenom mitingu Kosovo je Srbija, a mievi, je li, nisu ljudi nego tetoine, mieve treba istrebljivati. Tako da je ta vrsta retorike vrlo za njih zanimljiva. E sad ova poslednja pria oko Sonje Biserko i HO za ljudska prava, to se onako ponavlja svako malo tu postoji lajt motiv naeg medijskog ivota. Slobodan Antoni je zapravo u Glasu javnosti objavio jedan tekst gde je tvrdio kako Sonja Biserko i HO za ljudska prava proganjaju nau inteligenciju, nau nacionalnu, kulturnu i svaku drugu elitu, kako su oni neprijatelji, kako to rade po nalogu svojih finansijera i nalogodavaca iz inostranstva, kako su oni protivni srpskim interesima i sve u tom stilu i onda je to bio okida. Sutra dan javili su se iz brojnih medija tipa Veernje Novosti, tabloidi i drugi, pa su onda zvali te nacionalne uglednike da oni kau ta misle o tome. Pa su oni opalili iz svih oruja po Sonji Biserko. A zanimljiv je taj izbor nacionalnih uglednika i zanimljiv je zapravo razlog ta pie u tom izvetaju HO za ljudska prava, o emu se tu zapravo radi, zato su se oni toliko naljutili. Oni su se naljutili zato to Sonja Biserko i ekipa koja je to radila, taj izvetaj, njih citira. Dakle, oni su samo citirali ljude, objavili su ta su oni rekli, priajui o irenju nacionalizma koji je i dalje jak u Srbiji i koji prosto onako deluje poprilino nezaustavljivo i koji je neka vrsta prepreke na naem putu u evropske integracije. Oni su pobesneli zato to ih neko citira. Znai niko nije lagao nita, niko se ne slui tim tehnikama lai kao to to radi Slobodan Antoni i tom montaom, izvlaenjem iz konteksta, pa sad, bude neto potpuno drugaije od onoga to su ljudi rekli. E to je sad ilo do, onako, drastinih razmera, pa je recimo Dule Savi

46

u jednom sportskom urnalu ili Sportu, tako negde, izaao je naslov izvuen iz njegove izjave koji kae Hoe da me ubiju. Znai Sonja Biserko kao da ima nekakvu jedinicu za specijalne operacije. Zapravo potpuno su zamenjene uloge. Oni su uradili sve da sebe viktimizuju i da sebe prikau kao rtve iako su oni zapravo dobitnici i profiteri itavog procesa devedesetih godina. Meu njima, osim tog Duleta Savia, koji je sad veliki patriota, lan upravnog odbora javnog servisa i drugih institucija koji je rat proveo hrabro borei se za neto u Parizu, koliko se seam. Drugi najzanimljiviji sluaj u celoj toj prii je Vasilije Kresti, akademik, koji je jedan od pisaca Memoranduma, koji je ovek koji je skovao onu uvenu sintagmu genocidni narod i Hrvate proglasio za genocidni narod i on je jedan od ovih velikih kartografa Velike Srbije i cele te prie koja je zapravo pokrenula itavu mrnju, pokrenula ratove. Mislim, tu njihovu priu je Miloevi koji je bio jedan komunistiki aparatik do tada, preuzeo kao svoju i onda je gurao kraoz devedesete godine. Do neko vreme ozbiljno, posle su se oni razoaravali redom u njega, jer eto nije hteo da ratuje do kraja, pa su bili velika opozicija, od Matije Bekovia preko Dobrice osia i drugih. Dakle, ti ljudi su bili besni jer su citirani i sad tu nije kraj, poto je tu prozvan Pravni Fakultet kao leglo antihakog lobija, onda je Pravni Fakultet drugog dana objavio veliki oglas gde se brani od tih optubi u Politici i Veernjim Novostima, sad navodei sve dobre stvari koje se rade na Pravnom Fakultetu, i sve je to, je li, tano, ali na Pravnom fakultetu predaju i Kosta avoki i Oliver Anti i mnogi drugi, i na Pravnom fakultetu je organizovana ona uvena tribina Istina o Srebrenici, koja je zapravo iz drugog puta uspela, iz prvog puta, nisu uspeli prvi put da je odre, jer je to trebalo da bude slavlje nekakvo valjda oslobaanja Srebrenice, valjda nekakva godinjica, oni smatraju da tamo genocide nije poinjen i Srebrenica je po njima osloboena od civila vrlo efikasno, a na toj tribini Istina o Srebrenici izmeu ostalih govorila je i Ljiljana Bulatovi koja je priala jednu ovako groznu i morbidnu priu o tome kako se njihova groblja sada nalaze na srpskoj zemlji i kako Muslimani treba da izmeste ta svoja groblja na svoju zemlju, jer to je plodno srpsko zemljite koje treba da se obrauje. Sad ne mogu tu nekakve kosti da im smetaju, mislim nee lepo salata da nie verovatno, to im uasno smeta. To je jedan od najmorbidnijih stvari koje sam uo sa te strane. E sad tu se ne zavrava ova hajka na Sonju Biserko. Tu su bile reakcije po ovim drugim medijima, tu je Teofil neto pisao, mi smo neto pisali u e-novinama i po nekim drugim medijima su se pojavile reakcije protiv te hajke, ali to je sve rezultiralo onom etnjom, u to vreme su i dalje etali ovi zatitnici i branitelji Radovana Karadia koji se svakog dana okupljaju

47

na Trgu Republike i protestuju protiv njegovog hapenja, to su ljudi koji podravaju genocid oigledno i koji podravaju Radovana Karadia i njegove ratne operacije. E onda su oni malo zastali ispred HO za ljudska prava, malo su tu urlali neke svoje parole i zalepili su kukasti krst. To je isto zanimljivo. Znai ljudi koji podravaju jednu faistiku ideologiju zalepe vam kukasti krast proglaavajui vas faistom. I na kraju, kao kruna svega su dva nepoznata oveka saekala Sonju Biserko ispred njenog stana, ona je zvala neke svoje prijatelje koji su se tu brzo pojavili pa se tu nita nije desilo, ali moglo je dakle da doe do nekog fizikog obrauna. Teofil Pani: Adresa njenog stana je objavljena, to je vano, znai kako su je oni doekali ispred stana. Tomislav Markovi: Adresa njenog stana je objavljena u medijima. Znai tu je u pitanju hajka koja zaista ide na, ono, to sam nedavno napisao o Slobodanu Antoniu kud on okom Obrazovci skokom, kud on slovom, ovi drugi olovom. To je zapravo njegova osnovna intencija, a on sve vreme sebe predstavlja kao ugroenog i to je, po meni, dosta zanimljiv obrt. Njihova elja, mislim stvari su se naravno promenile, devedesetih godina verovatno bi se svata desilo , kad je objavljen onaj uveni tekst o uruviji on je ubijen posle toga. Danas se to ne deava, nego vas samo malo tako zaplae, malo vas napadnu, ali stvari uopte nisu bezazlene. U nekim malo drugaijim okolnostima, kada bi se stvari malo radikalizovale, tu bi verovatno dolo i do fizikih rtava. To oni zapravo ele samo to Slobodan Antoni glumi finog gospodina, pa nee to da kae tim reima. Teofil Pani: Ja bih samo ovaj, ako mi dozvoljava...Zapravo sam shvatio da nisam odgovorio na drugi deo tvog pitanja, pa pre nego to mi postavi novo, samo da dopunim, znai na neki nain se i nadovezujui na ovo to si ti sada rekao. Poto je taj tvoj drugi deo pitanja bio zapravo da li je bilo opasnije tada govoriti, pisati protiv nacionalizma, ili sada. Zapravo se razlikuju struktura straha odnosno struktura, smer iz kojeg dolazi potencijalna opasnost. Moe se rei da si se ti devedesetih godina pre svega imao razloga bojati drave, dravne represije, znai to je ono, UDBA, vojne, paravojne, policijske, parapolicijske strukture, ratno, kriminalno, mafijako, to je sve u jedno uvezano klupko, je li, i mi smo, na kraju krajeva, ja kao ovek iz medija to dobro svedoim, znai, imao si primere naih ubijenih kolega poput Dade Vujasinovi

48

i Slavka uruvije i tu nema ta da se pria. Znai, to je bio jedan strah, pre svega, od drave i tog represivnog aparata. Nakon 5. oktobra taj strah od drave je neuporedivo manji, to se mora priznati. To je realno tako. Hvala bogu. Pa ako to nismo osvojili, onda zaista nita ne bismo osvojili, ali s druge strane, postoji taj strah od drutva ako tako mogu da kaem. Naravno, od jednog dela drutva, od tog dela koji naginje tom ekstremno desnom ponaanju i koji je danas daleko kuraniji u tom ponaanju nego ranije. Zato je to tako? S jedne strane, je to tako zato to je sam Miloeviev reim imao neku nacionalistiku ekipu, pa onda iskazivati javno neki nacionalizam nekako je znailo biti reimski ovek po defaultu, to se jednom delu tih desniara recimo nije dopadalo, nisu se ba toliko pronalazili u tome. Ti dakle ima jednu situaciju koja, formalno vlasti u Srbiji nakon 5. oktobra sve su redom proevropske, demokratske, ovakve, onakve. To hrani svakog nezadovoljnika bilo ime u svom ivotu i u ovom drutvu da sebe proglasi, je li, velikim protivnikom sistema sa velikim S, tako to e za sve da optui, je li, izdajnike, strane plaenike, nesrbe, ovakve, onakve, je li, i to na neki nain stvara jednu strukturu nekog besnog, isfrustriranog sveta, a to ne treba potcenjivati, jer takav svet je u svim istorijskim primerima bio, na kraju krajeva, onaj najpogodniji za raanje nekakvog faistikog pokreta i svega toga, i vi kad vidite te mlade ljude nabijene gnevom, mrnjom, beskrajno agresivne, pri tome beskrajno, moram rei, beskrajno nepismene i beskrajno velike neznalice, a beskrajno agresivne i samouverene vi zapravo vidite ljude koji su proizvod, s jedne strane proizvod Miloevieve epohe, ali sa druge strane, koji su se tako politiki formirali u tom postpetooktobarskom vremenu, koji misle da je svako zagovaranje demokratskih vrednosti neka vrsta, to je kao da si mainstream, to nije ono pravo, ono radikalno, jer biti protiv svega za ta se deklarativno zalae sadanji sistem, poto je naravno ovde neka radikalna levica u sutini stvar koja postoji samo u tragovima, onda se ide na radikalnu, kao u ostalom i u drugim istono evropskim zemljama, dakle, s druge strane, onda se ide u tu radikalnu desnicu, i onda se njima ini, to je s jedne strane onako fancy, a to to je njima fancy to zapravo naravno realno moe da se pretvori u veliki problem za ovo drutvo. Mislim da tu treba naglasiti, znai ono to je devedesetih godina bio, ono to je dolazilo iz pravca samog reima, samog dravnog aparata, danas vie ne dolazi ili je marginalnije sa te strane, a primarno dolazi znai sa strane tih, to je ono to ja kaem, freelance (frilens) ludaka. To je ono ti naprosto, ti izae na ulicu i ti ne zna da jednostavno nee naii nekakva budala , i ne znai da je neko toj budali u BIA, ili ne znam gde naredio da te..., ne on to radi jednostavno

49

ono od ruku i kruhu. Milo Perovi: Dakle opasnost vie ne dolazi sa vrha nego sa dna? Teofil Pani: Da, da, i to je taj problem Milo Perovi: Da, pa dakle, pomenuto je par puta, posle 2000. godine i te tzv. demokratske vlade i vlasti su se izmeljale u nekoliko oblika, neprestano se pozivaju na svakojake vrste sloboda, kojih ne znam gde ih vide, ali dobro, pa se tako neprestano izgovara i floskula o slobodi govora, a ini se da uopte nije definisano ta se podrazumeva pod slobodom govora. Pa tako imamo primere da se slobodom govora pravdaju istupanja raznih faistikih, profaistikih organizacija i pojedinaca. Dakle, da li iznoenje faistikih ideja u javnom govoru spada pod slobodu govora? Teofil Pani: To jako zavisi od konteksta istorijskog u kojem neka zemlja postoji. Dakle, esto se nai ekstremni desniari pozivaju na neke primere, pre svega iz anglo saksonskog sveta gde je daleko vea tolerancija prema odreenoj vrsti faistikog javnog govora nego to je to u tzv. kontinentalnoj Evropi. To je iz razloga naprosto to anglo saksonski svet nije imao istorijsko iskustvo sa organizovanim faistikim pokretima, naprosto, niste imali tu vrstu iskustva, i vi onda moete imati mnogo jau toleranciju prema neemu to naprosto nije trauma vaeg drutva. Ali na primer zato jeste trauma u Americi kako je nastao taj famozni politiki korektni govor da se ne moe rei za crnca ne samo nigger to je uvredljivo , nego se ne moe vie rei ni crnac. Ne moe rei black person nego kae afro american person, to ponekad zvui i malo komino. Ja uvek kaem, ali ja kad vidim crnog oveka na ulici koji mi prilazi, otkud ja znam da je on African American, moda je on upravo doao iz ada, jel tako? Ali hou da kaem, znai ono to je njihova frustracija, njihova trauma to se itekako gleda da se s time raskine. Pa zato recimo se jako pazi na to obraanje kada je u pitanju rasna pripadnost i tako dalje. Naravno, kod nas u kontinentalnoj Evropi, poevi naravno od same Nemake koja je bila znai taj epicentar nacizma i koja ima veoma stroge zakone po tom pitanju, i logino je da Nemaka ima najstroe zakone, mi moramo na te stvari da gledamo drugaije. To je neto to je ovde pobilo milione ljudi. I mi to ne moemo gledati samo kao nekakvu potpuno apstraktnu akademsku

50

raspravu o granicama slobode javnog govora. Pa ne moe, zna, apstraktna rasprava prestaje na onoj taki gde poinje ubijanje. Poto mi to iskustvo imamo, mi naprosto to ne moemo sebi dozvoliti, i zato je sasvim logino i nije ni u kakvoj suprotnosti sa bilo ijim liberalnim, demokratskim, socijal demokratskim ili ne znam kojim sve ubeenjima traiti da, na primer, u Hrvatskoj ne smeju da se istiu ustaki simboli, da u Srbiji ne smeju da se istiu ljotievski simboli, da u svim tim zemljama ne smeju da se istiu ti, kako da kaem, opte nacistiki simboli. To je naprosto savreno normalno u kontekstu ovog drutva, jer je to to je ovde ljude ubijalo. To je ono to je ovde ljude klalo. To je ono to je ovde ljude teralo u logore. To je ono to je ovde ljude teralo iz kua. Pa mislim, dakle ne govorimo o nekim stvarima koje eto ne dopadaju nam se pa ajde da ih zabranimo. Ne. Znai drutvo uva demokratiju tako to zabranjuje najekstremnije forme simbolikog , a naravno posle i fizikog opravdavanja i provoenja organizovanog nasilja nad drugim grupama ljudi. Jer vi ne moete, faizam nije nikada samo neka apstraktna pozicija. Ja ne mogu da zamislim oveka koji bi na primer verovao, ajde da uzmemo situaciju da neko veruje, eto apstraktno veruje da su Jevreji nia rasa. Da li vi moete da zamislite situaciju u kojoj on ne bi kao sledei korak svog verovanja smatrao da, poto su nia rasa, treba da trpe neke posledice zbog toga. To nikad ne ide bez posledica, to nikad ne ostaje na nivou nekog apstraktnog uverenja. Izvinite molim vas, ako su Jevreji nia rasa, najmanje to treba da im se dogodi je l tako, to je , na primer, da ne mogu da rade poslove koje moemo ti ili ja, a u, naravno, kako to ide dalje u degeneraciju na kraju se, boe moj, zavri u konc logorima, a gde bi se zavrilo nego u konc logorima? Tako da te stvari nikada, znai to je uvek zamena teza. Kada se govori o tome kako neko eli zabranu govora mrnje da spreava neiju slobodu miljenja i govorenja, to je uvek elementarna zamena teza. Radi se samo o tome da drutvo zarad svoje samoodbrane mora da sprei ono to je uvek prvi korak ka sprovoenju delatnog nasilja nad drugim ljudima. Milo Perovi: Sledee pitanje bi bilo za kolegu Atanackovia. Dakle, koliko su pripadnici politike i intelelektalne elite u Srbiji danas uopte svesni teine javno izgovorene rei? Jer mi recimo danas imamo primer, i slobodno u rei bez ustruavanja, pomahnitalog Ministra inostranih poslova Jeremia koji recimo jednom svojom izjavom narui ionako jadne odnose u regionu. Da li je mogue, mislim to je, taj ministar je iz Demokratske Stranke koja je jel tzv. demokratska

51

stranka i koja je jel nenacionalistika i tako dalje, da li je mogue uopte u dogledno vreme prevladati tu matricu koja se izgleda ponavlja ve zadnjih 25 godina u javnom govoru Srbije? Petar Atanackovi: Svest politikih elita o nekoj teini izgovorene rei oigledno ne postoji. Njihov osnovni problem, jedan od osnovnih problema, jeste to ne poseduju svest da u graanskom drutvu, ako uzmemo recimo da je ovo graansko drutvo, neka bude tako, postoji razgranienje javne i privatne sfere. Znai da postoji razgranienje izmeu onoga to Vuk Jeremi konkretno misli kad ode u toalet i onoga to izjavljuje u funkciji ministra. To je donekle i problem same slobode govora. Teofil je govorio o ubeenju tih nekih profaistikih krugova da se njima navodno oduzima sloboda govora. Zapravo, niko njima ne zabranjuje da misle, eto konkretno, u svojim privatnim stanovima ta god hoe i da rade u svom privatnom prostoru ta hoe, ali jednostavno u javnosti ne smeju, odnosno ne sme im se dozvoliti da tako istupaju. Vuk Jeremi je klasian primer nerazlikovanja te javne od privatne sfere, pa izmeu toga njemu nedostaje svesti o teini izgovorene rei. Nedavno sam bio u Berlinu nekim drugim povodom i tamo samo saznao kakvo miljenje vlada o Vuku Jeremiu, a vlada miljenje da je njegov jedini kvalitet kvalitet pod znacima navoda to to on moe da najbre na svetu izgovori frazu nacionalni suverenitet i teritorijalni integritet i to na engleskom jeziku. To mu je glavni diplomatski kvalitet. Dakle, u pitanju je karikatura od oveka koji se ponaa kao kauboj. Svojevremeno je u novinama pisano o tome kako se on odnosi prema diplomatama. A taj njegov fokus na Hrvatsku tj. pik pa oigledno je odluio da na odnosima sa Hrvatskom i na njihovom nepotrebnom zaotravanju gradi sebi neku poziciju u domaoj politici. Prosto koristi spoljnu politiku zarad unutranje politikih razloga. Ni sam nije svestan da time ozbiljno naruava i onako krhke odnose izmeu Srbije i Hrvatske. Tako da je on uistinu ampion svega toga. Dakle, privatni interesi dolaze na mesto optih, kako je ono Milan Kangrga uvek govorio, upravo to zamenjivanje opteg pojedinanim, koje se u filozofskoj etici definie kao zlo. Mislim da nije Vuk Jeremi jedini primer toga: svojevremeno je postojao ministar po imenu Milan Parivodi koji je bio zaduen za oblast ekonomije i koji je javno na televiziji govorio kako kada neko spomene Milana Nedia svi treba da stanu mirno. Pitam se ta ministar za ekonomske odnose sa inostranstvom zna o Milanu Nediu i zato je njegovo miljenje relevantno o tome, ali on je prosto oigledno

52

oseao potrebu da to kae. Onda, jedna uvena pria o jednom jo uvenijem ministru. Svi se seamo ministra kulture Dragana Kojadinovia koji je jednom prilikom, to sam uo iz proverenih izvora, na nekom skupu sa predstavnicima nemake ambasade i predstavnicima nemakih medija izjavio da, parafrazirau, postoji velika bliskost i interes za saradnjom izmeu Nemake i Srbije i tako dalje, a da smo to iskazali jo tamo izmeu 1941. i 1945. godine. Rezultat je bio ozbiljan diplomatski skandal, koji je ovaj nepismeni ministar kulture izazvao svojom glupou. Ambasador je morao da mu objanjava da je Nemaka antifaistika zemlja, da on nije prisutan u svojstvu predstavnika Treeg Rajha nego Savezne Republike i tako dalje. A da li je Kojadin to shvatio, ne verujem. Milo Perovi: Dobro, posle ovoga je teko vratiti se u normalu, ali dobro...Sad bih otvorio jedno pitanje koje mislim da uopte nije bilo u fokusu nae javnosti kada se pria o govoru mrnje uopte, ja nisam uo primer da se o tome uopte pria, a upravo su e-novine donele maestralan, moram rei, tekst Viktora Ivania pod naslovom Nula od ovjeka u kojem se skree panja na jedan oblik govora mrnje, na, koji kao to kaem, uopte se ne obraa panja u javnom govoru. Naime, Ivani u tom tekstu opisuje reklamu za balkansko izdanje magazina Forbs koja ide pod parolom ne budi nula od ovjeka, budi sedam nula i ukazuje upravo na klasnu mrnju koja izvire iz te glavne teme prvog broja ovog magazina. Po ovome su ovde oni drugi i drugaiji oni siromani , pa se u toj reklami i u celom tom magazinu kroz to ne budi nula od ovjeka, budi sedam nula je li, spoitava se da ste manje vredni ukoliko niste u najmanju ruku milioner i ukoliko niste u najmanju ruku neki Mikovi ili neki Todori ili ve koji balkanski tajkun. Pa zamolio nih gospodina Markovia da prokomentarie, da otvorimo tu temu. Tomislav Markovi: Pa ja bih samo hteo da se nadoveem kratko na ono to je Petar priao. Meni se ne ini da Jeremi pogreno ne odvaja tu privatnu od javne sfere. Mislim kada bi on priao neto to nije po volji Borisu Tadiu i vladi ja pretpostavljam da bi se neko bunio. Oigledno je da on sprovodi politiku koja je politika ove zemlje, samo to je on najglasniji i najagresivniji. Mislim, ipak je on Tadiev mali od palube, nije on sad tu neto sam po sebi, nije se on tu stvorio... Teofil Pani: On je Velja Ili ove vlade.

53

Tomislav Markovi: Mlai, lepi i perspektivniji i Tadi ga vie voli poto mu je i predavao. Tako da mislim da tu ne postoji ta vrsta kolizije. Na alost. Bilo bi dobro da sad ovi misle da ne treba tuiti Hrvatsku i da ne treba zaotravati, ali izgleda da to njima odgovara. Ja bih podsetio isto da kod one tribine o Srebrenici na Pravnom fakultetu tada je B. Tadi rekao da svako ima pravo da iznosi i izraava svoje miljenje, negirajui sve ono to mi veeras priamo. Da nema granice u slobodi govora. ovek je oigledno liberalniji od nas kao to se primeti. A ovo, da, to je bio zanimljiv tekst Viktora Ivania Nula od ovjeka jer je on pokazao kako govor mrnje zapravo proiruje podruje, polje podruja borbe. Zapravu, tu su se, ini mi se, stvari malo obrnule. Ovde kad smo priali o ovim primerima govora mrnje tu je nekako, oni koji su moni, oni koji su nekako na vlasti, ili pri vlasti, ili su povezani sa nekakvim novcem spadaju u nekakvu manjinu. Mislim borci za ljudska prava su manjina, Romi su manjina, ljudi koji sluaju Peanik su takoe manjina, levica je manjina i tako dalje. Ovde u toj reklami koja je najavljivala balkanski Forbs, Viktor Ivani je pronaao neto potpuno obrnuto, da zapravo manjina koja dri svu vlast, bogatstvo i mo u svojim rukama, koja je lepo meusobno povezana, ona zapravo potpuno nipodatava i iri neku vrstu govora mrnje prema veini, prema barem 90% stanovnitva, dakle, prema svim obinim ljudima, radnicima. Sad tu postoji jedan zanimljiv obrt. Sve ove grupe o kojima smo govorili manjinske, one nekako mogu da se bore za svoja prava, i to je nekako legitimno i prirodno i normalno i niko tu sa nae strane ne postavlja pitanje. Ali, recimo, Ivani tu tvrdi da radnici nisu zapravo svesni da su radnici, i da su oni, da imaju jednu vrstu interesa u odnosu na one koji su gazde i u odnosu na one koji dre svu mo.To je sad na zapadu , kao to neko citira tu i tamo, da tamo radi skalpel, a ovde radi satara, nekakav kasapski no. Malo su stvari drugaije. Kod nas su potpuno ogoljeni, manje vie znamo kako su svi ti ljudi sa sedam ili vie nula doli do svog kapitala, i znamo da je to bilo u nekim prilino nelegalnim uslovima. Sad oni su to sve u glavnom legalizovali, ali oni sebi u toj najavi za prvi broj magazina Forbs daju za pravo da prosto sve ostale ljude proglase nekakvim neljudima. I upravo tu on nalazi paralelu izmeu, je li, nacistike propagande koja je izvan pravnog poredka postavljala Jevreje, koji nisu ljudi, koji su neto drugo. E sada su se kriterijumi promenili. Ako imate novac vi ste ovek, ako nemate novac vi ste nita i sa vama moemo da radimo ta hoemo. E sad, ja mislim da je kod nas malo problem to se ljudi protiv toga ne bune. Mislim taj Kurir i svi ti asopisi, Pravda, gledao sam na nekoj televiziji, mislim onoj koja pripada Bajatoviu proslavu stotog broja Pravde, ili tako neto, i sad tu su se

54

pojavili Dragan ilas i cela ekipa, to je bilo veselo, i oni su proslavljali to su posle tri meseca doli do tiraa od 50 000 primeraka. To je velik tira, znai ljudima odgovara. Ja imam utisak da je ovde proizvedena takva matrica koja od ljudi nasilno, mislim pomou oruja, pomou svih moguih vrsta torture i nasilja tokom devedesetih godina stvorila nekakvu strukturu koja nema ba obiaj da se mnogo buni i da se bori za svoja prava. I mislim da se to nekako iri i dalje. Ja sam, to iz linog iskustva, to iz nekih istraivanja, jedna moja prijateljica je radila istraivanje po beogradskim srednjim kolama o predrasudama i ila je samo u centralne beogradske kole, i sad za jedno 5, 6 dana e biti gotovo to istraivanje pa emo to objaviti u e-novinama, i tu su rezultati porazni. Ja sam 2005. godine priao sa decom koja su imala 16 godina u jednoj prigradskoj beogradskoj optini i priali smo o Albancima neto i odeljenje se podelilo u dve grupe, deaci i devojice. Deaci su bili za reenje po kratkom postupku, to sve treba pobiti, dok su devojice bile onako malo nenije, kao to i prilii tom stereotipu o slabijem polu, one su bile samo za proterivanje. I borili smo se da im se nekako objasni da su Albanci takoe ljudi, i to je napredak. To je, mislim, onako prilino jezivo. Sad ja ne bih da zvuim katastrofino,ali ini mi se da je to seme zla koje je posejano krajem osamdesetih godina i preuzeto iz nekih drugih kulturnih obrazaca koje je proizvodila naa nacionalistika inteligencija, tako da je to dalo svoj plod protiv kojeg emo se mi boriti dugo. A ovo, mislim, izgleda da su se stvari u Hrvatskoj malo negde pomeraju pa se otvaraju neke druge teme, tako da bih ja ovde voleo da se ponu otvarati neke drugaije i druge teme. Ali mi taman kad pomislimo da emo sad negde da krenemo eto dola je kao neka proevropska i demokratska vlada, evo se pojavi pomahnitali Jeremi, i kao vrati vas u ono gde ste ve bili. I opet morate da se bavite istim temama, to je dosadno. O Jeremiu mi je dosadno vie da piem, ili o nekim slinim stvarima. Stalno ponavljate iste prie, ajmo malo na neke druge teme. Ali, na alost, oni nemaju razumevanja za nae novinarske probleme. Petar Atanackovi: Samo da dopunim, a pro po ove tvoje prie, odnosno pitanja oko Viktora Ivania i Forbsa, Feral je davnih dana pratio te zanimljivosti meu osvetenim novobogataima na Balkanu. Forbs, to balkansko izdanje ovog asopisa, samo je jedna nova stvar u nizu, Feral je svojevremeno pisao o prvom srpskom izdanju Glorije i onako propratili su ga odlinim tekstom: pisali su o potocima ampanjca, o pojedenom kavijaru i tako dalje, i prepoznali u tome neku vrstu, kako su tada rekli, klasno nacionalistikog saveza, jer su sve to bile one heavy nacionalistike strukture

55

iz Hrvatske i Srbije, od Tonija Huljia i sline ekipe, do Duke Jovani koja je u svojim novinama pravila od svakog iole poznatijeg Srbina svetsko istorijsku pojavu. Dakle, to su sve te nacionalistike strukture koje su se po toj novosteenoj klasnoj osveenosti sa pozicije tajkuna ujedinili, pa je nacionalistiki savez dobio jo dodatnu, hajde da kaem, klasnu komponentu, ali naravno uvek na neki izvrnuti i potpuno perverzan balkanski nain. Milo Perovi: Ja bih postavio jo jedno pitanje gostima, pa bih onda vama prepustio iz publike ako imate nekih pitanja da postavite. Dakle, internet kao novi medij koji je, s kojim je l i nemamo ba nekog iskustva prevelikog. Poznato je da taj medij nije kontrolisan i da se na njemu moe nai masa stvari iz koje se moe oitati govor mrnje i masa faistikih, profaistikih sajtova i jednostavno ta sfera medija uopte nije pravno regulisana. Dakle, da li uopte je potrebno pravno regulisati taj medij, i da li uopte ga treba stavljati u pravo, jer, kao to je poznato, on ima, kao to ima tih negativnih tendencija, ima i pozitivnih. Komentar. Teofil Pani: Nisam pravnik, ne bih se bavio time, bar ne na direktan nain kako se to moe regulisati i da li treba, ali moda na kraju i doemo do toga zaobilaznim putem. Zapravo, ja moram priznati da ja nemam pojma ta je to internet, da li se on uopte moe nazvati medijem. Znai, kako emo definisati medij, pre svega? Ako je on medij, onda je on sasvim drugaiji medij od svega onoga to mu je prethodilo u tom smislu. I sada tu postoji itav niz problema. Ja sam, moram priznati, neka vrsta velikog internet skeptika, ako se to tako moe nazvati, to je verovatno jedna od najnepopularnijih pozicija koje danas moete zauzeti. Jer svi oboavaju internet. Faisti - antifaisti, leviari - desniari, bogati siromani, graani seljaci , pametni glupi. Ne daj boe da se neto kae protiv interneta kao takvog. Naravno, i besmisleno je u osnovi govoriti protiv nekog medija kao takvog, jer to je, isto tako bi se moglo govoriti i protiv televizije, novina, ali one postoje pa postoje. Meutim, ta je problem sa internetom? Ja to gledam naprosto sa stanovita oveka koji sam radi u medijima, ali ne samo da radi u medijima, nego ja sam naprosto neko ko od kada zna za sebe praktino, ono, intezivno troim sve mogue medije, a naravno, pre svega, one pisane, i poto ste vi u glavnom u publici, a bogme i vi ovde u glavnom znatno mlai od mene i vi se ne moete ni setiti tog iskustva, ali, znate, neete verovati, recimo, do pre 20 godina u naim novinama ti nisi mogao praktino objaviti pismo italaca bez pune adrese.

56

Znai, Pera Peri, ono, ulica Vojvode Bojovia 13, 21000 Novi Sad. Pa ti sad brate reci ta ti je na dui. Danas, to je zapravo, ne da nema tvoje adrese, ne da nema tvog imena, tvog lika, nego nema niega, nema ni tebe. Dakle, ti moe se nazvati bilo ime i moe biti neki, recimo, ne znam, neki stari ovek koji se proglaava za mladu zanosnu plavuu i iz perspektive mlade zanosne plavue radi ne znam ta po internetu. Dakle, taj stepen virtuelizacije u kojem se gubi svaki suvisli identitet subjekta se ini ljudima strano zavodljivim. On nam se ini kao prostor beskrajne slobode. Mogu da radim ta hou, mogu da govorim ta hou, mogu da komuniciram s kim hou po celom svetu, to je sve lepo, to je super. Meutim, postoji tu druga strana. Ja bih rekao da je to esto zapravo prva strana. On omoguava da ljudi rade sve one loe i rune stvari drugim ljudima, upravo u kontekstu govora mrnje i svega ostalog, a da se pri tome oseaju savreno sigurnim, savreno bezbednim, savreno anonimnim. To je idealna situacija za manijake, frustrate, bolesnike svih vrsta. Internet je ostvarenje njihove utopije. Zato? Upravo zato to on nema taj famozni filter. A odgajani smo u jednoj kulturi permisivnosti koja je prilino lakoumno i lakomisleno proglasila svaki filter za cenzuru. Jer svaki klasini medij, zvao se on novine, zvao se on televizija, radio, pa ak i internet, ako je zaista medij, on ima nekog svog urednika ili urednicu, tamo naprosto postoje neki ljudi i ne moe tamo da objavi neko da se ne zna ko je, je l tako, znai, ovek objavi autorski tekst pa stoji imenom i prezimenom iza toga, i tako dalje, meutim, internet to sve lepo ukida, on to sve lepo vezuje u manicu i kae evo, izvolite, sloboda podjednaka za genija, za kretena, za ovog, za onog, za ljubav, za mrnju, za pamet, za glupost, sve je ravnopravno, sve je slobodno, izvoli, udri, lupi, oei, opljuj...I ja moram rei da nain na koji se internet komunikacija kod nas degenerie je meni duboko uvredljiv. Trudim se da u tu kantu za ubre ne ulazim duboko, ali svaki put kad se zeznem pa uem proeprkam malo po naim forumima, blogovima i ostalim udesima, ja se zapanjim. I da se razumemo, to nije pitanje politikog opredeljenja. Stvari koje se na internetu mogu nai o ljudima koji su mi politiki krajnje nesimpatini, uopte mi se ne dopadaju, dakle, nije to samo pitanje toga da sad, ne znam, postoje nai i njihovi, ne, ne, ne...Sama ta forma, ona uzgaja ono najgore u oveku. E sad, jedan e vreati Teofila Pania, drugi e, ne znam, analizirati, ono, da li je ore Vukadinovi ruan ili lep. Pa izvini molim te, ja ne mislim da je ovek koji raspravlja o tome da li je ore Vukadinovi ruan ili lep, da je on antifaista zbog toga. Nije on antifaista, on je kreten! Mislim, ako je tebi u ivotu bitno da sad govori da je ore Vukadinovi ruan, i da je debeo i da ima rune

57

naoare, ti nisi antifaista, nit si leviar, nit si demokrata, nit si liberal, ti si idiot! I ta vrsta idiotizma je neto to je ohrabreno formom. Klju je u anonimnosti. Anonimnost je alfa i omega cele prie. Ideja da moe virtuelizovati svoj identitet, da se moe bezbedno, udobno uukati u neki jebeni, kretenski nick name i iz njegove pozicije delovati, faistiki, antifaistiki, liberalno, antiliberalno, populistiki, elitistiki, uopte me ne zanima, je sama po sebi bolesna. Ona ne moe da izrodi nita dobro. Ona ne moe biti dobra, ona kretenizuje javni diskurs, ona sputa sve kriterijume, ona sve uvalja u svoje blato, ona u svoj prosek uvalja sve. Ali, kaem vam, ovo je naprosto vreme kada svaki klasini medij trpi tu etiketu da je on na neki nain konzervativan jer, boe moj, ima urednika, pa, ne daj boe, ima i vlasnike i svata ono, je l te, to ta internet sloboda nema. Meutim, to lepo zvui kad se tako kae, ali znate ta, ti drugi mediji imaju neku vrstu profesionalnog standarda, koji dodue esto kre, daleko od toga da je to idealno, ali neki elementarni regule postoje. Da li vi znate nekog oveka, ajde zamislimo ovakvu situaciju: da bi ovek, recimo, pisao nekakvu kolumnu za novine, mora da postoje neke novine, dobre ili loe, ijem uredniku i vlasniku padne na pamet da ba tog oveka angauje, pa ga onda plati neto, mislim, tu postoji nekakav kriterijum, tu postoji neka procedure, tu postoji neto, pa onda taj ovek imenom i prezimenom, esto i sa fotografijom, da moe posle svaka baraba da ga zapljune na ulici. E sad zamislite nekog oveka koji je potpuno frustriran to njega niko ne zove da pie kolumnu za novine. I zamislite da postoji hiljadu takvih. I svih tih hiljadu veruju da su neshvaeni geniji kojima zli establiment ne da, jer je zao, da se dokau. Znate ta onda biva? Svih tih hiljadu ljudi ponu, recimo, da piu blog, jer da bi pisao blog ne treba, mislim zna, jednostavno, otvori svoj blog i vozi Miko. Od tih hiljadu ljudi mogue je da je jedan, mogue je da je jedan zaista neshvaeni genije. Postoji takva mogunost. Ali onih preostalih 999 su dokazani moroni, a sad ti meni reci kao korisnik interneta kako e se probiti kroz tu umu, kako e nai tog jednog genija u praumi od 999 morona koji svakog dana nastaju, pa sutra opet novih 999, pa prekosutra opet novih 999, i tako dalje? Tu kraja nema. Dakle, ovime zavravam ovaj sololokvij,sve dok je anonimnost uesnika, subjekata, nazovi to kako god hoete, sve dok je anonimnost osnovna pretpostavka interneta, sloboda koju on nudi nuno e se u ogromnom broju sluajeva pretvarati u svoju karikaturu koja e uasno esto biti otuna, smena i bedna, a kada se bavi govorom mrnje, onda bogami i opasna. Tomislav Markovi: Uh, teko je posle ovoga...To je tano. Poto smo mi na internet

58

mediju, mi smo svakog dana izloeni komentarima najrazliitijih vrsta i onda se vrlo esto deava da umesto da ljudi komentariu tekst, oni vam kau da ste budala, da ste idiot, zato to vi eto kritikujete crkvu, a on neto mnogo oboava crkvu i to mu predstavlja sve u ivotu. I sad ima tu ve nekih pacijenata koji se javljaju, to je onako zanimljiv proces, da se to prati...Ima neki Istok koji se meni uvek javi kada piem o crkvi on mene najvie voli, tako da je to prosto neverovatno, to je postalo onako jedna patoloka veza. Dodue mi ga uvek izbriemo kad pone da vrea, kad stavi neto to nije uvreda onda ga kao prosto ostavimo, a s druge strane ono to je Teofil spomenuo, ja bih samo da se nadoveem na ono to je Teofil priao, to je znaajno za neke ljude koji se bave literaturom pa preko bloga misle da valjda objavljuju. Bio sam na Krku ove godine, na festivalu Pontes, i o tome je priao Valerij Jurei i to je dosta zanimljivo, o tome nisam preterano razmiljao, a problem je u tome to na blogu nemate urednika. To je kljuni problem. Nema objavljivanja bez urednika. On kae bolje objavite u asopisu Re, proitae 20 ljudi, nema veze, ali ste objavili, proli ste filter Dejana Ilia koji je jedan od najstrunijih, znai tu neto postoji, u vama ima nekog talenta. S druge strane, opet, internet moe da se iskoristi na razne dobre naine. ini mi se da je Ivan Tobi to uspeo, on je radio nekakav blog, pa je preko toga poeo da pie roman, pa sad, sa manjim ili veim uspehom, ali prosto iskoristio je tu formu, zapravo taj medij, da napravi neto, ali pod svojim imenom i prezimenom. Naravno, ta anonimnost jeste veliko iskuenje, tako da to ide do nekih sumanutih devijacija i govora mrnje koji se iri na sve strane, pa je na facebooku su postojale one uvene grupe, neke postoje jo uvek, as se zatvore, as se otvore, bila je ona no, ica, Srebrenica koja je zatvorena pa ponovo otvorena ovih dana, gde, ne znam, postoji onako neka odrednica ispod imena te grupe koja kae da je to grupa za sve one koji misle da su Muslimani najbolji na ranju i dok plivaju u sumpornoj kiselini. To je onako eklatantan primer govora mrnje i poziva na nasilje i to regularno postoji zato to niko ne moe da ih sprei, zato to tu postoji ta sloboda koja je potpuno podivljala koja nije vie sloboda, koja je negacija slobode. A jedan od najzanimljivijih naslova tih uvenih facebook grupa je bio ubij Hrvata da iptar nema brata, eto bili su malo dovitljivi. Ali tu se iri ista vrsta ludila. Osim toga, tu sad postoji niz tih internet foruma gde se oni okupljaju, i tih socijalnih virtuelnih grupa, Stormfront je verovatno najpoznatiji... Tako da je internet nekakav prostor gde se to iri uasnom brzinom, na sve strane, po svim moguim forumima, pa otvaraju svoje internet strane, kao to ima Firer, kao to ima, ne znam, onaj Lui kojeg ste malo pre pominjali. Mislim, to

59

je gomila sa kojom prosto ne znate ta da radite. Njihov uticaj ini mi se raste, to se prosto nekako iri na sve strane, i ja mislim da je malo problem to, koliko ja znam, to nije ni pravno ureeno, tako da e tu zapravo morati neki koraci da se preduzmu. Ono to vai u stvarnom svetu, valjda bi trebalo da vai i u virtuelnom. Teofil Pani: Da, ali vidi problem je u tome to su ljudi tu stvar prihvatili zdravo za gotovo, prihvatili su je kao svoje demokratsko pravo. I to je veliki problem. Recimo, dakle, taj konvencionalni medijski filter, znai u neko pred internet vreme, ti pie pismo itaoca novinama: treba se pre svega potruditi; kupi pismo, ono, hartija, pa napie, pa onda zalepi, pa markica, pa onda odnesi do potanskog sandueta, do tad te ve proe bes. Al dobro, recimo napie pismo, jebe kevu nekome i to doe do urednika, urednik to pogleda i baci u ubre, jer je to kojetarija, to nije za objavljivanje po definiciji, i niko se tu puno ne buni. Ovaj nije ni oekivao da mu se to objavi, ovaj praznio se ovek, ali realno znao je da nema anse da mu se to objavi. Isto tako ovi, pretea internet foruma - kontakt programi na radiju i televiziji, pa kad pone mnogo da sere i da vrea, onda te ovi, je li, otkae. Prosto, problem je u tome to ljudi koji alju komentare, znai, kada ima internet izdanja novina, pa su tu ti komentari, ili kada ima kao u e-novinama, tako dalje, i slinim medijima, znai, one komentare ispod, kad god nekoga banuje, je li, ovaj cikne, uvreeno, najstranije, bez obzira ta je on, koju je glupost napisao, on po defaultu smatra da ne sme njega da banuje, jer samo banovanje kao takvo, bez obzira na razloge, povod, na bilo ta, samo banovanje po miljenju mnogih negde se suprotstavlja toj bezobalnoj slobodi interneta. I to je taj veliki problem. Zato ta masovna percepcija interneta kao jednog onako neogranienog prostora za bilo koju vrstu iivljavanja nuno negde dovodi do toga da ti ljude frustrira, jer prosto si im obeao da se sve moe. Sve se moe. Onda si im rekao pa ne moe se ba sve. I tu sad zapravo internet mediji jo trae sebe, trae neku meru, neto gde bi se zapravo negde smestili da ne bude skroz ni ovako ni onako, a ja nisam siguran da e uspeti tako skoro, jer je ljudima obeana utopija apsolutne slobode iskaza koja naprosto ne moe biti ostvarena, a da ne trpi elementarni nivo javnog diskursa. Milo Perovi: Pitanja iz publike, ako nema da zavravamo...

60

Pitanje iz publike: Imate li neki komenatr u vezi Graanskog lista i vojvoanskih medija... Teofil Pani: Ja ne znam o tome bog zna ta i mimo injenice da je Graanski list promenio dakle vlasnika, promenio vlasniku strukturu i da su ti vlasnici pre nekog vremena zapravo sproveli prilino radikalnu promenu ureivake politike, u skladu s tim je mnogo ljudi otilo, da li dobrovoljno ili su bili primorani da odu iz te redakcije, doli su neki drugi. Ja sam jedno vreme bio potpuno fasciniran apsolutnom prazninom koju su emitovali, dakle, ja uzmem pa prelistavam i ni na jednoj strani ne naem ali bukvalno nita, ak ne naem nita ni to bi me nerviralo, ne naem nita to bi mi bilo negativno, ne naem naprosto nita! Naem agencijske vesti i servisne informacije. Nita! Niega nema. Nema govora mrnje, jer nema govora! E sad, ne znam u poslednjih jedno mesec dana nisam u toku, ekaju me ti brojevi novi al nisam doao do njih tako da ne znam da l se neto promenilo u meuvremenu, ali oigledno je da je neija ideja bila da onaj Graanski list kakav je postojao valja ubiti, a da nije imao ideju ta bi on to na tom leu, je li, izgradio i pretpostavljam da je to to. Ali meni se samo ini da e ti vojvoanski lokalni mediji jako loe proi u ovom tumbanju, jer se s jedne strane, ova izdanja Dnevnika lokalna, znai Subotike novine, Zrenjaninske novine se gase, ili se na neki nain prodaju, je li, ovoj strukturi koja je kupila Graanski list. To e se zavriti tako da e se tamo gde je postojala konkurencija, tamo gde su bila po dva lista, ostati samo po jedan, a taj jedan e biti kontrolisan od te strukture o kojoj sam malo pre govorio i mislim da to e naprosto biti jako loe za ono neto preivelih tampanih medija u manjim gradovima u Vojvodini. Pitanje iz publike: Mene zanima vae miljenje o namernoj kretenizaciji, svih medija jer uveren sam da postoji tu neka kampanja kretenizacije svega. Zanima me vae miljenje dokle e to ii i da li e se ponovo desiti neto pozitivno, ili e se zaista ii na ono totalno sputanje kriterijuma po svakom principu. Zato je nestao Feral Tribune? Teofil Pani: Ovaj, poto svi neto sleu ramenima, ajde da opet ja...Naime, i sam radim u glavnom za medije koji spadaju, pre svega za Vreme naravno, a i za neke druge koji spadaju u te nekakve malo litrane i malo tirane medije koji su takvi u ostalom, manje vie, od samog svog poetka i koji predstavljaju neku vrstu, ajde tako

61

da kaem, moda i elitistikog koncepta, zato da ne, ja ne mislim da je to dirty word ako se pravilno upotrebljava, naravno, i u drutvu u kojem trite diktira sve, ak i kad je to trite mnogo bolje od ovog naeg koje je po mnogo emu paratrite, dakle ak i kad je mnogo bolje od ovog ovakvog, onaj ko hoe da traga za kvalitetom, za ozbiljnou, da ima takve neke bezvezne stvari kao to je recimo kulturna rubrika, zamislite, i sline budalatine, pie o knjigama jebo te, mislim svata, ono, znai on je negde nuno samoosuen na jednu vrstu marginalizacije, na jednu vrstu siromatva. To siromatvo je recimo u zapadnim medijima relativno. Na primer, Guardian je siromaan u poreenju sa Daily Mailom, ali avola je Guardian siromaan. E, ali kod nas je to siromatvo bukvalno. To siromatvo, to znai da ljudi koji rade u takvim medijima ive od nekakvih mizernih plata i honorara, u potpunoj egzistencijalnoj sigurnosti, da uopte ne zna dokle e to sve da nekako gura i da kotrlja, i tako dalje, i to je ta pozicija u kojoj se nalaze mediji u famoznim drutvima u tranziciji, a naroito u ovako unitenim, elementarno razvaljenim drutvima kao to je srpsko i veine eks jugoslovenskih drutava, i tu naravno, ta prvo strada, strada svaki pokuaj da se nekakav kvalitet i standard odre. I to nema veze recimo kakva je predistorija tih medija i da li su oni politiki nekome simpatini ili nesimpatini. Pogledajte vi recimo RTS i B92. To su dva medija koji nose neku vrstu sasvim razliitih meusobno politikih konotacija. Meutim, danas ako izuzmete jedan deo informativnog programa, sve druge emisije jedne televizije mogli bi ste zamisliti i na onoj drugoj, plus Pink, ve bogami i veinu, ceo zabavni program B92, tv B92, radio hvala bogu se jo donekle dri, ovaj, bi se mogao zamisliti na Pinku. Dakle, u ime nekakvog trinog diktata i opstanka, koji da se razumemo nije naivna stvar, naravno ja to apsolutno mogu da razumem, ali ne mogu da razumem, opravdam to da se smatra da je jedini nain da se opstane na tritu ideja da su ogromna veina ljudi naprosto kreteni koji ne mogu nita da svare osim takvog sadraja. To elementarno ne stoji. Postoji mnogo ljudi koji bi, ja to tvrdim, ja se esto raspravljam i sa kolegama i tako, postoji mnogo ljudi koji eznu recimo za istinski kvalitetnim dnevnim novinama. Ja sam ve 500 puta pisao, popeo se ve svima na glavu da u Srbiji od kad ne izlazi Naa Borba nema, naprosto nema dnevnih novina koje bih ja mogao da itam bez velikog zazora i bez ogromnih fundamentalnih primedbi. Naravno, jedna vrsta primedbi je koje bih uputio, ne znam, Politici, druga je vrsta primedbi koje bih uputio Danasu, recimo. Navodim ta dva primera, jer su to dva najozbiljnija dnevna lista kod nas, je li. Ali meni treba neto to e naprosto biti jedan list koji ja mogu da itam i da ono kad ga stavim negde na sto

62

u kafani da kaem: da ja itam ovo, to je deo mog identiteta, kao to e u Engleskoj neko da stavi Guardian ili e da stavi Independent ili kao to e u Parizu neko da stvai Le Mond, to neto znai. Ovde to vie nita ne znai. Nita ne znai, jer su mediji zapravo negde upali svi manje vie u tu neku vrstu potpuno neravnopravne trine utakmice, a ako eli da bude negde po strani nuno si osuen ili samoosuen na marginalizaciju i na siromatvo. Pa ti vidi. Tomislav Markovi: Ja bih samo da se nadoveem, skoro sam priao sa Viktorom Ivaniem i on je neto slino rekao. Samo na zapadu postoji ta margina i ti ima nekakvog prostora i ta margina je prilino iroka, a ovde je ba svedena na nulu. A taj sluaj sa Feral Tribuneom, tu ima svata. Njima su ljudi svata zamerali, ali je injenica da su EPH i drava uloili silne pare da njih ugase i da oni nisu mogli da dobiju nijedan oglas pre toga, iako su imali relativno pristojan tira, ali oigledno, drava je bila protiv njih. Kod nas je stanje malo drugaije jer je arenoliko, ne postoji ta vrsta medijskog monopola kao u Hrvatskoj, gde sve dri nekoliko ljudi. Nakon to se Feral ugasio, Predraga Lucia i Viktora Ivania su zvali iz Novog lista i onda su se oni kao dogovorili da Viktor pone da pie za Novi list, a Predrag Luci da pone da pie za nekakav tjednik koji je trebalo da bude pokrenut nakon dva ili tri meseca. Samo sad taj nedeljnik nikako da se pokrene, a Viktoru su rekli, ekaj, odmori ti jo malo, onda su oni otili na taj sastanak, gde je bio novi vlasnik Novog lista, neki nafta Jei, i onda su se raspravljali i pitali su ga na kraju, pa dobro zato mi ne moemo da piemo odmah? Jer oni e dobijati kao plate i sve to, a ne moraju da piu. To je dosta zanimljiva situacija. Onda su oni rekli, pa mi ne moemo da nasledimo vae neprijatelje, mi ne moemo da uzmemo vae neprijatelje. Taj odnos je, mislim, ve raskinut, to nije dugo trajalo, to je neki kao sumanuti odnos, da vas plaaju da ne piete, ali je indikativan jo jedan primer: dopisnica Novog lista iz Zagreba je pisala o nekakvim kesama koje se valjda prodaju ili su loeg kvaliteta u Konzumu i poslala je to, tako jedan bezazlen tekst uredniku, i urednik je nju zvao i urlao na nju 10 minuta, zato? Ona prosto nije mogla da shvati o emu se radi, pa pisala je o kesama, bezazlena potpuno tema, benigna. Onda je on nju pitao: da li ti nesreo zna ko pravi sve kese u Hrvatskoj? Ona je rekla pa ne znam. Pa na novi vlasnik.

HATE SPEECH IN MEDIA

Publisher: CENZURA Branimira osia 5, Novi Sad Production: Youth Center CK13 Vojvode Bojovia 13 Novi Sad Realization: Alternative cultural organization AKO Vojvode Bojovia 13, Novi Sad Center for Social Researches CSI Vojvode Bojovia 13, Novi Sad Editor: eljko Klari Translation: Vincent Spevak Petar Atanackovi Logo design: Hanna Blank Design and prepress: Mirjana Popovi Print: Daniel Print, Novi Sad Novi Sad, 2009 Project support: National Endowement for Democracy

All copying and further utillization of texts from this publication is welcome, except in cases of commercial use and of their utillization within fascist, racist and sexist context

HAT E SP E EC H IN ME D I A

CENZURA Novi Sad, 2009

CONTENT Petar Atanackovi HATE SPEECH IN MEDIA: INTRODUCTION..............................................................69 Hanna Blank WAR-TIME PROPAGANDA: MEDIA AS AN INSTRUMENT OF MANIPULATION........72 Transcript of the panel discussion: HATE SPEECH IN MEDIA: WARS OF THE 1990s......................................................79 HATE SPEECH IN MEDIA: SERBIJA AFTER 5th OF OCTOBER 2000th......................101

69

Petar Atanackovi HATE SPEECH IN MEDIA: INTRODUCTION Research of the hate speech represents important part of analyzes of public discourse in contemporary Serbian society. War experiences form the 1990s and undeveloped political culture in Serbia had influence on the wide spread hate speech, which represent dominant form of discourse in some parts of public. But, there are certain problems with definition of hate speech, which were further influencing on relationship of public toward some of it manifestations. On the one hand, there is clear intention to define as hate speech any kind of intolerant, rude and primitive relationship toward different, mostly political opinions, with which hate speech can be transformed in to pointless concept. On the other hand, typical examples of hate speech are often seen as simple, emotionally stronger manifestations of patriotism and expressions of developed national conscience, with which, again, results i.e. effects will be the same. Typical approach for the public figures, when they denying reproaches about hate speech, is their reference on freedom of speech. Truth is that freedom of speech represents basic civil right, but it cant be misused for endangering the rights, freedom and even physical safety of the other people, individuals and social groups. Its necessary to try to define hate speech, and one of the possible definitions goes like this: under hate speech we can imply propaganda, praising and justification of the crimes, as well as instigation of crimes over social groups and individuals, based on their race, skin color, religion, nationality, sex (gender) or sexual orientation. Propagation and transferring of ideas about superiority or minority of one social group or its members, as well as usage of symbols which are stimulating hatred and promoting superiority or minority of social groups and their members, can be also recognized as hate speech1. Why at all to point out the problem of hate speech in Serbia? Experience from the wars in the last decade of 20th century, wars which started as wars of words and different degradations of the other ethnical and religious groups, represent clear
1 Hate speech in Serbia, Newsletter No. 1, YUCOM Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, Belgrade, 2008, page 1.

70

warning how the hate speech in media can serve as introduction in to the conflicts and war crimes connected with them. Population of Serbia, Croatia and Bosnia were brought in to the state of madness by permanent chauvinistic propaganda, instigation of fears, prejudices, religious, national and even racial intolerance in the beginning of the 1990s. in this situation everything was possible and every war crime had explanation and justification: murders, mass raping, ethnic cleansing or concentration camps Even the worst possible war crime genocide, find some justification and its own logic place inside wider concept. Genocide in Srebrenica in year 1995 wouldnt be possible without intensive propaganda activities before. Instigation of old fears, ethnical and religious intolerance and exclusivity, permanent historical and religious references (permanent reminding on centuries of Turkish rule, wall of Christian Europe etc.), together with spread of racism, at the end resulted with genocide. This shocking war crime couldnt be implemented and justified without months and years of intensive propaganda based on hate speech. So its important to point out that main characteristic of hate speech is that hate speech never represents only verbal activity, because it has immanent practical moment. In other words, practical realization of verbal moments represents basic characteristic of hate speech. Examples from the time of conflicts in Yugoslavia represent the most obvious manifestation of hate speech and its influence on the society. But, cases of spreading the hate speech, instigation and justification of violence over different social groups and individuals because of their ethnical, religious, sexual, age or some other characteristics are present on almost daily basis in public discourse in todays Serbia. Last in the series of examples campaign against HC for human rights and Sonja Biserko2 in September 2008th, as well as chauvinistic incident of ex-minister Velimir Ilic connected with celebration of National state day in February 2009, just confirms our thesis. Obviously parts of public still didnt manage to conclude anything from the war-time experiences, or they didnt want to conclude anything, which can be important fact for the future Project Hate speech in media is started with idea to research hate speech phenomena and its place in public discourse, first of all in media, as social factor of great importance, factor which can mostly influence on the public opinion and
2 Report about this case is published in Hate speech in Serbia. Attacks on Sonja Biserko as classic example of hate speech toward human rights defenders, Newsletter No. 1, published by YUCOM

71

behavior. Through the series of public debates, held in Youth Center CK13 in the December 2008th, as well as through individual researches, group of authors, journalists, linguists and historians, tried to define concept of hate speech, to analyze its manifestations in the 1990s, as well as to research its manifestations on public scene after democratic changes in October 2000th. Basic idea of the project, which didnt had big pretensions, was to define and research this problem from the angles of different experts, but mostly journalists, as the main actors on the media scene and, by that, public opinion makers. Method of public dialogue was favored in comparing the method of individual and group researches, so basic of this publication are transcripts of two public debates. Main intention of authors, as well as intention of editors of publication, wasnt to finish or to give final conclusions about this topic or researches of it. In that way readers should understood material from this publication: it is just an Appendix to the researches of the hate speech phenomena. From this reason, publication does not represent our final word in this area, but instead of it, its just a hint for further studies and analyzes.

72

Hanna Blank WAR-TIME PROPAGANDA: MEDIA AS AN INSTRUMENT OF MANIPULATION Introduction Media are playing a very big role in the conflicts and wars. Indeed media alone can not create a war itself, but their systematic manipulation plays an intrinsic role in strategies of various leaders. The influential media were used to obtain public support or public tolerance for policies which is, in the best case, threat to peace and security. This support or tolerance could not have been assured unless the public accepted that armed conflict would not be an excessive price for the pursuit of nationalistic objectives [] the media were essential to procure such acceptance.1 Furthermore the usage of the media as a suppressing tool is nothing new. The continuous tradition of authoritarianism in the media is explained in the words of Konstanty Gebert: [W]hen you translate from the language of communism into the language of democracy, you need to change both the vocabulary and the grammar [] if you want to translate from the language of communism into the language of nationalism, all you need to change is the vocabulary. The grammar remains the same.[] it is inclusion versus exclusion, and violence as a legitimate way of achieving previously ideological, and now national, goals.2 The justification of authoritarian ruling was implemented through the manipulation of fear of the people. Regimes in Yugoslavia were developing systematically fear of political process, because they knew that as long as they could prevent the masses from partaking in civil life, they could continue with their own politics.3 The methods & principals of war propaganda in the media The fact is that public does not want conflict or war. But this general position of the public can be changed with different mechanisms. First one is to convince public that the only guilty part for conflict and/or war is the other side, that conflict/war is imposed by the enemy and now must be accepted. Conflict or war wasnt our
1 Thompson 1999, p. 291f 2 Thompson 1999, p. 293 (K Gebert) 3 Thompson 1999, p. 294 (Blagojevic, S and Demirovic, H: Erewhon 1994 Amsterdam)

73

choice, but we have to defend our self from them, to confront our not selfserving goals and good cause to their selfish and bad causes. That was the situation in Serbia (and other ex-Yugoslav states) in the 1990s.On the one hand politicians are stressing their will for peace, but on the other hand they further argue that they would have been forced to the war, that the attack came first from the enemy, that they had to act in self-defense, that they have to perform international duties, etc 4 According to this logic there was a clear picture in Serbian media, because the Serbian side never attacks; it responds to enemy provocations, assaults, crimes or genocide.5 In the media Serbian forces were displayed as unarmed defenders of centuries-old hearths, or often simply shortened to defenders or simultaneous liberators of towns and territories. For two month media didnt mentioned that Sarajevo was bombarded by Serbian forces. On the contrary according to the reporter Rada Djokic Muslim authorities were holding Sarajevo under siege from within, so that the Serbs were in the position to defend their century-old hills around Sarajevo.6 One special example can be found for this thesis in western media propaganda during the NATO war in 1999. On the basis of the principle the other, the other who started, argumentation followed the pattern: because the enemy despises and underestimates our power, we cant be any longer observant, but we are forced to demonstrate our power.7 In the same manner, western propaganda in 1999 argued that Yugoslavia was provoking the NATO and forced the NATO to react with military force. On January the 18th 1999 French newspaper Le Soir wrote that Yugoslavia has provoked the NATO with unbelievable cynicism and asked how long the worldwide largest army can justify her observant position.8 Usually there is a big gap between official and unacknowledged war aims. In case of NATO-war or so called intervention the official aims have been to preserve the multiethnic character of Kosovo, to prevent the mistreatment of minorities, to implement democratic system and to bring down the government. After the war it was obvious that most of the official aims havent been realized. Still nonofficial economic and geopolitical goals have been fulfilled, but never have been mentioned before the
4 Morelli, 2004, p. 15 5 Thompson 1999, p. 90 6 Thompson 1999, p. 90 7 Morelli 2004, p. 29 8 Morelli 2004, p. 30

74

war. After the war NATO gained much more influence in the southeast Europe. NATO has now bases in Albania, Kosovo and Macedonia. Further proposals of Conference in Rambouillet (conference was held before war) before have foreseen to implement free market economy and opening to the free capital flow on international market for Kosovo.9 In the end the bombs, which destroyed the Yugoslavian post-socialistic economy were the last step to open the market for foreign enterprises in the region. According to NATO-speaker Jamie Shea, the costs of the military actions against Yugoslavia would be gained back by the profits which enterprises could make in the region in the long run.10 Quite sure is that the war wasnt motivated by humanistic or altruistic aims, but exactly this motifs have been propagated to influence the public opinion and to get the acceptance for the war.11 Second important moment for mobilization of public is creation of fear. To gain the acceptance of a military action and involvement into a war it is very important to get the acceptance of the population for a war. Thats why propaganda has to persuade the people that their independence, honour, liberty, even life is in danger and that the war forces the implementation of undisputable values.12 Through the permanent display and repetition of the threat of the enemy a scenario of an omnipresent danger is set up. Description of the enemy as a demonic character aims to morally justify the war and to open up the categories of the good (= we) and the bad (= the enemy). For example, Yugoslav news agency Tanjug used in 1992 prejudicial and polemic terms for the armed forces of Bosnian government: Muslim forces, mujahidin, MuslimCroat forces, Muslim extremists, Muslim paramilitary organizations, etc.13 The aim of this demonisation of the enemy was to create an overall perspective that a MuslimCroat coalition had caused the inter-ethnic war by obtaining independence without Serb consent; and that the Bosnian Serbs had only reacted to a blatant threat and were defending themselves [].14 Important moment is need for personalizing of the enemy. Usage of hostile stereotypes to describe the enemy-side routinely appeared in Croatian as well
9 Morelli 2004, p. 56 10 Morelli 2004, p. 57 11 Morelli 2004, p. 58 12 Morelli 2004, p 45 13 Thompson 1999, p. 26 14 Thompson 1999, p. 26

75

as in Serbian press, radio and television. On one side Serb terrorist or SerboCommunist army of occupation; on the other side Croatian forces were called Ustasha, equalizing them with the army of Hitlers wartime puppet state.15 War propaganda was quite often using racist rhetoric to incriminate enemy, and that was typical for both Serbian and Croatian propaganda in the Balkan wars. Use of language in generally plays important role in media during the conflicts and wars. For example, vampirical was one of the most favourite epithets in Serbian war propaganda. For example, Radovan Karadzic, war leader of Bosnian Serbs, described the war in Croatia as war against a vampirized fascist consciousness. (N Malcolm (1994): Bosnia. A Short History. London, 228)16 This propaganda method presents the war as a conflict between barbarity (enemy) and civilization (oneself). And for this purpose you have to substantiate in advance to the population, that the enemy is systematically and on his own free will committing cruelties, while the mistakes of the own side are happening coincidental and unintended.17 In this way the extreme form of criminality, which is with no doubt part of any war, becomes the exclusive attribute of the enemys army. This army then is described as consisting of unscrupulous and anarchic beasts.18 Key role in war-time propaganda is blockade of information i.e. control, censorship and adaptation of information for the public. For the constant support of the war by the population certain information and interpretations have to be adapted. The range of methods reaches from rewriting over simple disinformation: describing the own losses as low, while the ones of the enemy are enormous to merely omission of negative and unwanted news. Anyhow media coverage is characterized by lack of adequate detail or with balance presenting important information, prejudical commentaries, sheer hate speech and glossing over of controversial events.19 For example, the NATO tried to justify their bombardments during the war against Yugoslavia among other things with the proclamation that a vast number of thanks of the Yugoslavian army have been destroyed successfully. A report of the pentagon from June 1999 is estimating the real number of destroyed tanks up to 14 (and not
15 Zimmermann, W. In: Thompson 1999, p. 328 16 Thompson 1999, p. 23 17 Morelli 2004, S. 59 18 Morelli 2004, S. 61 19 Thompson 1999, p. 200

76

how before claimed 120).20 Further, the Royal Air Force admitted in 2000 that only 40 % of munitions, which has been dropped over Yugoslavia, hit their intended destination. On the other side the Yugoslav media published regularly again and again the same picture of three American soldiers, which have been captured in the beginning of the war. Obviously the aim was to persuade the readers that even more soldiers have been captured. Near the end of the NATO-Bombardments the Yugoslavian commanding General attested that NATO-forces had losses of dozens of airplanes, helicopters, unmanned aerial vehicles (UVA) a s well as hundreds of Cruise missiles.21 On both sides this kind of information intends to strengthen the moral of the own troops and to persuade the own population that the conflict has a legitimization. In case that foreign media coverage of an incident requires a response and cant be ignored or re-edited, for example Serbian state television RTS launched different tactics to limit the damage. Denial of the foreign report, spoiling the effect of the story by careful preparation and presentation, moving it to the end of the news program or sending parallel reports to detract from the authentic news have been used methods to keep negative information out of the news.22 Further common practice was instruction of the media and news agencies. For example in 1999 the Serbian Ministry of Information gave concrete instructions how to refer to several things: for example actions of police or army should be referred to as defensive activities, or NATO forces had to be referred to as the aggressor.23 Similar code of correct titles and terms was set at Croatian HTV in 1991. The same linguistic terms as in Serbias TV Belgrade (later RTS) have been used in Croatian news when reporting about the Serb forces or only the Serbs which were active in the occupied parts of Croatia.24

Wars and conflicts are often having a religious character i.e. receiving religious dimension. In the conflict between the Serbs and the Albanians religious feelings were also abused to create we and the other division. For example, Serbian
20 Morelli 2004, S. 93 21 Morelli 2004, S. 94 22 Thompson 1999, p. 92 23 Thompson 1999, p. 117 24 Thompson 1999, p. 159

77

propaganda was referring to a war between the half moon and the cross. The orthodox believe, as one of the basics of the Serbian identity, raised in importance for the reason also to unify the Serbs against the NATO.25 So or so there is a big involvement of church organizations. For example some bishops of western European countries supported the actions of the NATO in Yugoslavia. On the other side Russian and Greek Orthodox Church were supporting their Serbian-orthodox brothers.26 But, its important to notice that religious motif for the war is going to be used only if it serves the own mission.27 War-time practice shows that journalists can easily come into the situation to be seen as traitors. Already if they are doing their job, hearing first arguments of both sides and after that conceiving an own opinion or may doubt the official presentation of the facts, they are seen as accomplice of the enemy.28 Most of the journalists in the western NATO-states had the choice between simply passing the information which they get through the daily briefings of NATO-speaker Jamie Shea or to at least question this information and comment it critical. The few ones who didnt take the easier way, quickly had to face verbal assaults of being anti-western, anti-democratic or even follower of Milosevic.29 In the same manner Albanian Intellectuals from Kosovo who had criticized criminal acts towards non-albanian population in Kosovo, have been accused of being traitors by the official news agency, which was close to the UCK in this time.30 The French weekly newspaper LEvenement published on 29th April 1999 under the headline: The accomplices of Milosevic pictures and names of French intellectuals, authors and singers, which have been critical or skeptical about the NATO-politics. And even further LEvenement was attacking other media who gave these persons public space.31 Also in Croatia and Serbia journalists had to face big pressure not to criticize or even question the government originating from the ruling party as well as from other journalists. In the government-controlled media discredit of journalists as disorientated and unpatriotic became common practice.
25 Morelli 2004, S. 117 26 Morelli 2004, S. 118 27 Morelli 2004, S. 119 28 Morelli 2004, S. 124 29 Morelli 2004, S. 125 30 Morelli 2004, S. 126 31 Morelli 2004, S. 127

78

Independent media are playing important role in the times of wars and conflicts. During the wars in 1990s population in some parts of Serbia, mostly in Belgrade, had some access to the independent media products, like statements of opposition politicians and even direct criticism of Milosevics policies, like in the newspaper Vreme, TV Studio B and Radio B92. But area of influence of this independent media very limited. Every attempt to spread influence was sabotaged or directly stopped with usage of different methods: manipulation with taxes and costs for independent publications or broadcasters, refusal of distribution of publications outside Belgrade, massive pressure on independent reporters by state media as well as permanent danger of being physical attacked, arrested or even killed.32 But despite all the limitations, pressures and attacks, independent media have managed to survive and they played the key role in bringing down Milosevics propaganda and his political regime.

Bibliography: Morelli, A. (2004). Die Prinzipien der Kriegspropaganda. Klampen Dietrich. Thompson, M. (1999). Forging War: The Media in Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia, and Hercegovina. University Of Luton Press.

32 Thompson 1999, p. 140

79

Transcript of the panel discussion: HATE SPEECH IN THE MEDIA: WARS OF 1990s

December 8th 2008 Youth Center CK13

Participants: Milo Pankov (linguist, Novi Sad) Senka Gavranov (linguist, Novi Sad) Dinko Gruhonji (journalist, Independent association of journalists of Vojvodina, Novi Sad) Moderator: Zoran Petakov (historian, Novi Sad)

80

Zoran Petakov: Welcome to the first out of two panel discussions sponsored by the Hate Speech in the Media project. This project has been initiated by the Alternative Culture Organization and as a part of that initiative we will attempt to touch on some of the issues as well answer several questions since the influence of the media on the collapse of Former Yugoslavia is well known. Another subject we will try to open up concerns the events following the so called democratic changes of the year 2000. Has the role of media in society changed or have they merely altered their rhetoric. To help us with these issues tonight we have with us Dinko Gruhonji president of NDNV (Independent Association of Journalists in Vojvodina) and a reporter for BETA, Mr. Milo Pankov m.a. in linguistics and Senka Gavranov m.a. in the English language. My name is Zoran Petakov. Milo, you have been dealing with this issue for a long time and still continue to do so. So first let us define this term that is seeing so much use in everyday speech, Hate speech. What is it? What does it entail? How and why did it all start? You have the floor. Milo Pankov: Thank you. First I would like to cover some basics like the role of media in modern society and then move onto the terms we are dealing with. What is hate speech, how is it defined, how is it used and how does it spread via the mass media. The role of mass media in modern society Mass media are often wrongly associated exclusively with entertainment and, as such, they are considered marginal by the majority of people. However, mass communication channels are a part of societys general activities. One of their basic tasks is to inform but also to take a critical stance towards topics and events of public interest by which they influence the creation of the public or rather the public opinion. Not only because they influence our views but also because they represent the means of approaching various areas of human knowledge. In earlier communication theory the media are portrayed as intermediaries in the process of relating news/messages but with the growth of electronic media and the development of information technologies that enable viewers to become immediate witnesses of events happening across the world their ability to shape the contents of messages

81

they relate has also grown. This phenomenon has led McLuhan to conclude that the communication chain of modern society has been transformed so that the medium is the message. Influence and ownership of media have become key elements of political and financial power due to the medias ability to mold the public opinion and present a version of events in a very persuasive and suggestive way. On the other hand some of the modern theories on general public (by Jrgen Habermas also supported by the local sociologist ZoricaTomi) propose that the very expansion of mass media and entertainment has turned the public sphere into a mere sham. The public opinion is not formed through open discussion but rather through manipulation and control. According to Baudrillard the appearance of mass media, especially of the electronic kind, has changed the very nature of our lives because not only do they portray the world, they define for us what the world is like. He believes that an age where the media are omnipresent creates a new reality a hyper-reality where human behavior and media images intertwine. Appearance of new media outlets has also restructured our private and public lives. New media technologies like the internet have contributed to the democratization of the media and the fact that one persons opinion or experience presented on some forum can be available to millions of people all over the planet. At the same time this has also given birth to a TV audience that believes that any, even the most intimate part of somebodys life should be legitimately available to the media audience through the TV cameras as is already being done in the Big Brother reality show. Political discourse & media discourse Discourse analysis has been established as a method for analyzing the use of language. It is a discipline that studies the use of general language units in a certain context. One of its largest areas of application deals with media language and speech as well as different social spheres of language use like politics. Modern theoreticians studying media discourse have very much been dealing with the contents of media messages and their relation to the social context and significance. Based on Teuen Van Dijks sociocognitive model, bringing news into a social context brings about a realization of social relations and processes on the micro-structural level of language. Norman Faircloughs approach is in many ways similar to Van Dijks the difference being that Fairclough attempts to incorporate elements of intertextual analysis

82

into his model by determining origins and meanings of different speech (discourse) genres within a media sample. He has set three areas of media text analysis with the goal of understanding the relationship between the communication process and the sociocultural environment. These are the issues of: - representation (the way in which the world or an event are depicted) - identity (the way in which the identities of the participants are represented in a journalistic text) - relationships (analysis of relationships that make the media chain of communication: media audience, politician audience etc.) The bond between political discourse and media texts or shows is generated thanks to the fact that acquiring and preserving social influence and power is efficiently accomplished through the media. Access to and control of the media allows the speaker to propagate his messages to an audience numbering in the millions. Therefore the contents and the means of shaping political speeches are coming into an ever tighter relationship with the choice of media and media genres as their direct communication channel. The intermingling of the participants speeches in a media text or show is very significant during the analysis of the entire media message. The viewpoint of the media or rather the journalists speech needs to be distinguished from other types of speech (especially political speech) that are being conveyed directly or indirectly. Hate speech In recent times hate speech has become a very worn out and semantically undefined term. People and political groups who most often utilize hate speech very frequently claim to be its victims managing quite skillfully to relativize its meaning. The basic meaning of hate speech as a term, as best described in domestic literature by Ranko Bugarski, is public labeling, disqualification and satanization of a specific social group which can often (especially under conditions of war) imply physical liquidation. Thus defined, hate speech is a tool used by political speech for mobilization purposes with the goal of silencing or removing opponents, often during war preparations or during the war itself when hate speech takes on a leading role in orchestrating the wartime rhetoric. Some examples of hate speech could certainly be found in the racist propaganda of the Third Reich but our own closest and most obvious example is the

83

spread of hate conducted by the media that preceded the wars fought on the soil of former Yugoslavia. The structure of hate speech requires two opposed sides where the speaker, whether it is a politician, a journalist, an editor or some other public figure, is the bearer of a certain identity and is the representative of the US group (consisting of him and his supporters) whereas the opposition falls into the THEY or THOSE OTHER ONES category. In its basis hate speech leaves no room for tolerance, respect for differing opinions, cultures or identities. In his research Ranko Bugarski has identified different phases of hate speech use in Serbian media. In the beginning the war mongering propaganda the US group consisted of Serbs, presented as patriots, defenders of ancestral hearths, victims of imposed war, people of heaven etc. On the other side were all the others who would come into conflict with the politics of Milosevichs regime: other Yugoslav peoples, later described as Ustasha butchers, jihadist warriors, Shqiptar terrorists etc. In the second phase US no longer incorporated the Serbian people but rather the Serbian regime and the targets were THEY in the form of Western forces and internal enemies (Serbias opposition parties). This is how, for example, the participants of the 1996 protest following the opposition victory in local election became: hooligans, traitors and foreign spies, pro-fascist elements, quislings and as the conflict escalated with power slipping away from the regime, their media resorted to an even more aggressive rhetoric with expressions like: NATO-fascist scum, handful of new janissaries, degenerates, moral freaks These are certainly the most obvious examples which will forever remain embedded in our memories since a large part of the population felt personally called out and threatened. However, perfidious ways of packaging media messages and recognizing hate speech in societies that are not dictatorial or when coming from media that are presented as democratic is a field of intense scientific study. In western media hate speech is considered to be any negative characterization or rather the spread of stereotypes through media targeting marginalized groups like: foreigners, minorities or women. Violation of these rules is considered to be a breach of human and civil rights and there are precisely defined codices media must adhere to in order to avoid such incidents. In the works of Van Dijk and Ruth Wodak we come across a systematic analysis of racist speech that was particularly apostrophized during Haiders rule in Austria several years ago when the whole incident exposed Austria itself to sanctions by the EU. In political discourse any mention of a community or people as less worthy

84

than ones own or listing of some of their defining characteristics in the same context is considered racist. Racism can be explicitly conveyed through the media as in this example: Croats are a genocidal people but sometimes its detection may require a deeper semantic analysis I have nothing against Chinese people but the fact is that their coming here is taking jobs away from our workers. Ethnicism in language was fairly common during the wars fought on former Yugoslavia territory. Ruth Wodak defines this type of discourse as a softer form of verbal aggression than racist speech, listing the Serbian-Croatian relations as an example. Serbian and Croatian media often exchanged hard accusations but they could not be classified as racist propaganda due to the common language and origin that did not lend themselves to biological superiority theories. Paul Chilton describes a special strategy used by right wing parties and their supporting media in the form of implications that contain no negative messages from a purely formal standpoint. However information by which, for example, the nationality of the events participants is emphasized may manipulate the public into thinking that an incident was ethnically motivated. Example: Chinese assailants beat up four people in Belgrade. (Kurir, 2006.) When it comes to American media the events of September 11. are also frequently manipulated as are the government organizations that often violated human rights hiding behind the war on terrorism, followed by anti-Islamic attitudes or accusing ones political opponents to be indirect terrorist collaborators. Very important in Van Dijks observation is that the manipulation of public opinion is more efficient when all key media are controlled by the manipulator while democratization of the media significantly limits opportunities for manipulation. As a way of avoiding discriminatory language I would like to mention the guidelines proposed by Dubravka Vali-Nedeljkovi in her Praktikum novinarstva (Guidebook for Journalists) that can also serve as a reader/viewer guide for recognizing hate speech. It also contains a Code for Unsexist use of Language by Svenka Savi and advice on undiscriminatory reporting in regard to race:

85

Mention somebodys race only if it is very important. Avoid words that members of a certain race might find offensive (half-breed, coloured...). Do not speculate about a persons cultural background. As a part of an international research project Spinning out of Control (going by the name Public Intimacy, Intima javnosti in Serbia) a collection of studies was published that examined the medias treatment of opposing sides during all of the conflicts that took place in former Yugoslavia. An especially demanding area of this research project was to incorporate as much of the language used as possible. Reports from multiple media (Serbian and Croatian for example) were analyzed including their ways of portraying the opposing side during a war. One of the starting hypotheses in this collection was the fact that the awakened aggressive energy that becomes the language of state propaganda often spirals down into violence making the politicians themselves prisoners of their own discourse. In the part of the project I participated in as one of the authors, which deals with the conflict between the former Yugoslavian federation and Slovenia on its way to independence, an important methodological step was to differentiate between the journalists speech and that of the other news participants and focus on analyzing the language of the media themselves as one of the indicators of the medias policies. By analyzing the way TV Ljubljana and TV Beograd depicted the opposition, the starting phases of hate speech could be observed in the spreading of stereotypes about the people with whom we were still (as in the decades before) living in the same country. As a part of war preparations a media strategy was employed just before the military intervention where blame and responsibility for specific events were being systematically transferred from individual politicians to the whole country and its people (Slovenia and Slovenians). Another study I was involved with referred to the Markale massacres. Here the war propaganda machinery was fully utilized so that together with military units whole peoples were proclaimed as hostile along with the spread of ethnic stereotypes. At the same time a unity was established between the media audience, the media themselves and the people whose interests were being propagated along with their political leaders and military units who enforce such policies. In the third conflict analyzed the attitude towards the military and political leadership of RSK (The Republic of Serbian Krajina) had changed. Previously supported as a part

86

of the Serbian side in the conflict the media was no longer giving them unconditional support for continuing the war while the attitude towards the opposition (They) continued to be based on spreading hostility against their military units, people and political leaders. The most efficient motivational asset used by the media on that occasion was to identify opposing politicians with criminal symbols, movements and ideals from the period of World War II, extremist and terrorist organizations using the peoples historical memories and deeply rooted fears as means of manipulation. When it comes to modern times my colleague is going to tell you something about potential sources of hate speech. It is very important to know whether there is a defined codex, a journalistic one for example, that is going to prevent journalists or rather advise them on how not to use hate speech, as well as tell them whether it is sanctioned by law and whether some higher legislative acts provide incentive for such speech. I thank you. Zoran Petakov: Thank you Milo on your thorough presentation. Dinko, those of us who are old enough to remember the early 90s and domestic medias reports on the beginning of ex-Yu conflicts also remember Dnevniks supplements that lasted for hours showing very explicit images of corpses , people fleeing their homes etc. We watched it from the sides as consumers but what makes you an interesting conversationalist is that you were an active journalist during that time and are familiar with the people involved having had an inside look at the situation. So I would like you to familiarize us with that process, as it developed within Serbian media, and its participants. It is clear that lustration has not been conducted or ever will be nor is it possible at this time but it is not talked about. Dinko Gruhonji: Thank you. Good evening everyone. I was too young to be a journalist in the late 80s and early 90s but as a passionate admirer of the media I knew I was going to become one. Milos mention of his research projects and the Slovenian war has jolted or rather refreshed my memory. Preparation for that war began a long time ago, I was in the military at the time. After that famous moment when Slovenian officials walked out of the Communist League congressional session they were being branded as Austrian stablemen, separatists etc. Even then did people in Serbia, I dont know if you remember that, but there were actually cases of people

87

throwing Gorenje brand refrigerators and washing machines out of windows. So we lived through such times too. We also lived through what you mentioned in regard to war preparations against Croatia with the focus on TV Novi Sad, todays so called Public service of Vojvodina. Then all the way up to the events of 1995., I remember it like it was yesterday, also I know that when the Croatian operation Storm began on August 4th RTS1 was broadcasting a Russian Circus as if nothing was happening. Lines of tractors were still waiting at the border crossings because Sloba (Slobodan M.) hadnt let them in yet since he was still deliberating whether to let them into Vojvodina or redirect them towards Kosovo. Now that Ive mentioned Vukovar, its reminded me of something Ive heard recently. Theres an exhibition being opened tonight as a part of the Vivisect human rights festival. The topic is dictatorial regimes and among other things the archives of the Novi Sad Dnevnik were searched for photographs. Dnevnik has a great archive of photographs dating to all the tumults of the 80s and 90s, not only on ex-Yu territory but the whole Eastern Europe. But the photographs were simply gone, well they were destroyed. Not on purpose but due to sloppiness and lack of consideration for what was a great cultural and historical heritage. So now one of the richest journalistic archives in Serbia no longer exists. The negatives are gone too, theyve been destroyed by sloppiness and inadequate keeping. A still unconfirmed story is that the video archive has been destroyed too, a large part of TV Novi Sads video collection. That was obviously destroyed at the orders coming from above in order to remove any compromising material from the Vukovar, Slavonija and Srem (Syrmia) battlefields. There were some very interesting faces there, evidence that would certainly be of use to the war crimes tribunal. I assume youve had the opportunity to read the analysis of the media going by the name War started in Maksimir, the famous Dinamo-Red Star soccer game. I was in the military and stationed at Zagreb at the time and luckily we were forbidden from going out so I couldnt attend the match. Horrible fighting broke out between fans, between players and even players and the police, you couldnt tell who was beating on whom. It was interesting to see Marko Markovi report from the studio in Belgrade and Boris Muti, one of my idols in sports commentating up until then, report from Zagreb. It was completely obvious that they had already taken the side of Tumans or rather Miloevis regime and were without a doubt accusing the other side for what had happened. There are also valuable films by Lazar Lali who unfortunately disappeared without a trace, well not really without a trace. That is another example

88

of how people of principle are treated in this country. Lazar Lali had gathered and organized a collection of Dnevnik RTS (called RTV Beograd at the time) videos which were made into films named Year One, Year Two and Year Three. The films contained no comments only Dnevnik clips that allowed you to follow the process of hate, dissolution and crime if you will. So anyone who wants to take a look at the films can find them. I like to show them to my students because even then in the 89 91 period the key word was, you guessed it, Kosovo. And then the students say to me, Professor, this has to be a joke, this is new,not from the year 89, to which I respond, No, no, its a 89 Dnevnik broadcast when Kosovos autonomy was restricted and police raided the premises of Rilindija, a Prishtina news paper agency. The only thing different are the police uniforms but the commentary and everything else is the same, Kosovo, then too, was that sacred Serbian word. We can say whatever we want, I am nostalgic for Yugoslavia, but speaking in the media sense the media were never free in former Yugoslavia. They were subject to a very clear ideological dogma when it came to politics. In regard to culture and other areas of life the media had many freedoms which they used to create worthy shows, movies, documentaries but within the informative sphere there was obvious censorship conducted by the SKJ (League of Communists of Yugoslavia). So when you have that kind of drilling and indoctrination happening for 45 years (which is how long the communist regime lasted) its perfectly clear that when dealing with information and domestic politics you dont need censors because you already have an automated censorship chip inside you that makes you submit to whoever is currently in power. Zoran Petakov: Is this connected to the fact that only in Vojvodina 35 thousand people lost their jobs the second Miloevi came to power. Because many of those people were proficient in their work yet they were simply purged from all media. That must not be forgotten. Dinko Gruhonji: Unfortunately you are right. Still that is a minority of journalists. A really small minority who had the courage to oppose the nationalistic madness. They were not only great intellectuals but also professionals of integrity who would not stand for it. I believe that anyone who had half a brain realized what was going on. I dont say this because Im the president of NDNV but we are the first independent coalition of journalists on ex-Yu territory. We were formed in the year 1990 by the

89

very people, some of which are here in the audience, who wouldnt go along with that kind of dictatorship and censorship. The rest had obviously taken the path of lesser resistance or had simply followed ambition believing that with the best out of the way, they too could muddle their way to become reporters in uniform wearing a helmet. There were all kinds of surprises from people whom we believed to be honorable and honest but ended up becoming some kind of monsters and warmongers. The rest were more or less slimes who saw war, like any other area of life, as an opportunity to claw their way to editorial positions. Zoran Petakov: There are a few things you havent mentioned. You were, and still are, a BETA correspondent, a non-government agency. We have all read about the pressures enacted by the regime ranging from the closing down of the so called free media that were not in line with the regime, threats all the way to murders of certain journalists that to this day have not been resolved. There was always a bond between those people and the opposition that was merely using a political moment to assert itself as an opponent of the regime. But in some cases people were left completely unprotected and there was no one to raise a voice when that happens. Several days ago was a ten year anniversary since the shutting down of Naa Borba. It was then that you said, and I agree, that it was one of the most democratic and free media of the time but the fact is that it was shut down with almost nothing happening after that incident. Nobody protested much. The question is what does it feel like to do the job you love but end up abandoned by everyone and left to fight alone? Dinko Gruhonji: Well, I already said in that discussion that, in my opinion, Naa Borba was easily the best daily newspaper we ever had, the best in the history of Serbian print journalism. I dont know how much you remember that newspaper but it was worthy of a much greater country with an established democratic system. Another detail comes to mind, let us make another small digression and compare those times with today. What I had forgotten but was reminded of in that discussion was that Naa Borba had something called the tolerance award. The first tolerance award was received by the late Aleksandar Tima. The second one went to the student protest of 96. / 97. while the third tolerance award was given in Belgrade to, listen carefully now, the Albanian student union from Prishtina. It

90

sounds astonishing because its almost unbelievable that today, near the end of 2008., a Serbian daily newspaper would present an award to a union of Croatian students or anyone connected to one of the countries in the region. I unfortunately cannot see that happening and this is what Mrs Latinka Perovi said about it being a fact that Naa Borba has been shut down and what you said, that there not being (then or now) any ideas to resurrect it means that the society has no need for it as such. Despite my optimism it seems that, in the media sense, things are much worse today than they used to be despite these eight years of so called democratic reforms. It is true that we no longer have the same kind of political repression that we used to have under Vuis Information Law but even today we see Aleksandar Vui on all the media. We no longer have the political pressure that we used to have during the 90s but we have a sophisticated economic pressure that is very simple to explain. In Serbia there exists an artificial market that isnt really a market. It is the equivalent of what the history of economics calls a pre-accumulation of capital with focus on monopolies. We are in this phase of economic development right now. We have Mikovis monopoly on wholesale trading, Babis monopoly on medicines, wherever you turn theres a monopoly. And now, the so called large media like B92, TV Pink or Belgrades daily newspaper are trying to survive in such a market. But since its impossible to survive on market basis if you dont have an actual market you begin to face problems that if you try to write about the origin of Miroslav Mikovis or Miodrag Babis money your media is left with no ads. And then we wonder why there is no investigative journalism in Serbia. Very simple, because Veran Mati wont allow a journalist to do an investigative report because hes going to lose several hours of ads and commercials from companies like Delta or Hemofarm. During the 90s we had media that kind of stood out in that sense. We were a phenomenon worthy of study not only in the area of hate speech but also because we had Naa Borba, B92, Nezavisni and Vreme. Nezavisni no longer exists and I stopped reading Vreme in 1999., except occasionally, since I became disappointed with it. A victim of circumstances B92 has transformed into a commercial TV station and Naa Borba is also gone. But those were honorable examples of journalism and people of courage who, during very difficult times reported on the worst possible things. In 1995., while whole of Serbia was turning a blind eye to the events in Srebrenica, Vreme had the story presented on its cover page. Dada Vujasinovis texts and reports were being published in Duga that wasnt really democratically or liberally oriented yet the reports

91

were allowed. Those were war time reports by Dada Vujasinovi that are today being used as evidence before the Hague Tribunal. You can even find them on her web site www.dadavujasinovic.com, all collected and published by her sister. So this woman wrote about all the things that we later supposedly began finding out about, like in 2006. when we discovered that the Scorpions safeguarded oil for Goran Hadi and his group in Slavonija. Dada already wrote about all those things back in 92. It was all apsolutely clear. Those are examples of the kind of journalistic honor that is lacking today I think. What we have today is the so called media pluralizm that is in some way very similar to global trends. More or less all of us have cable TV at home and we often find ourselves in situations where we go through all of those seventy channels without finding anything of interest. Its because all of the programs are variations of the same theme not counting Discovery or National Geographic and other such interesting non-profiting channels. Its the same case in Serbia, different frequencies, everythings great, democracy is flourishing with a million different media but you cant really publish anything. In Autumn 2006. I was faced with the worst kind of censorship in my journalistic career. During the Serbian constitutional referendum of 2006., I am ashamed to admit, there wasnt a single media outlet that hadnt made a deal with the government promising not to stir things up. Not one, I had to conduct guerrilla operations from my home and make deals with editors I knew were normal to report the unconstitutional news after midnight while the other editors were asleep. Something like that never happened during Miloevis regime. Today when I look at the issues of Nezavisni from the 97.-99. period I often think wed be led before the firing squad because of the things we used to publish. Those were the times when I think about all the people who used to write for Nezavisni from Indira Vlasi to Esad Koan and other honorable names. None of that exists today, all we have today is manipulation of the media pluralizm which is a consequence of lustration not being conducted and the general social trend of sweeping everything under the rug because we signed the Declaration of Political Reconciliation so everythings dandy, we have both the Progressives and a bright future. Zoran Petakov: Thank you Dinko. I dont think you could have given us a better introduction than the constitution since Senka has something to say on that very subject.

92

Senka Gavranov: Instead of talking about the media I have decided to begin with a document that also has to do with public speech and is also constitutional in this country. I am going to do an analysis, it shouldnt be too strenuous, I merely want you to see whats going on and what layers lie beneath superficial language structures. Well go over the Constitution preamble and the first article. In regard to hate speech I just want to mention article 49. of the 2006. Constitution titled Prohibition of inciting racial, ethnic and religious hatred that says: Any inciting of racial, ethnic, religious or other inequality or hatred shall be prohibited and punishable. Remember that inciting of racial hatred is also prohibited but right now were focusing on ethnic hatred so let us go back to the preamble. The Constitution preamble says: Considering the state tradition of the Serbian people and equality of all citizens and ethnic communities in Serbia and then comes the famous Kosovo part that begins by saying that the Province of Kosovo and Metohija is an integral part of the territory of Serbia and that it has the status of a substantial autonomy within the sovereign state of Serbia and that from such status of the Province of Kosovo and Metohija follow constitutional obligations of all state bodies to uphold and protect the state interests of Serbia in Kosovo and Metohija in all internal and foreign political relations, the citizens of Serbia adopt. What Im now curious about is that the article 49 forbids any incitement of ethnic and religious intolerance and inequality but the preamble and the first article do not really support that. What they do is allow for certain kinds of speech because the Constitution differentiates between two groups of people. The preamble says this Considering the state tradition of the Serbian people which is a starting principle, meaning tradition. The second principle is and equality of all citizens and ethnic communities in Serbia. The third principle is Kosovo but that doesnt interest us right now. What interests us is that the Constitution makers talk to us about the state tradition of the Serbian people but we dont know what that is, it is not defined. It most likely has to do with some kind of continuity but I can only imagine what that is. I havent researched it but Im guessing it has to do with the year 1918 or the Nemanjii. That could be interpreted as a state tradition of the Serbian people. Also, the second principle is the equality of all citizens and ethnic communities in Serbia, and I dont know whether this was the Constitution makers aim and if Im being too picky, but the equality of all citizens and ethnic groups in Serbia simply does not rest within the concept of state tradition. But thats ok, we can admit our mistake and say that

93

the idea of ethnic equality didnt exist in 1918. But then we arrive at the first article that reads Republic of Serbia is a state of the Serbian people and all the citizens who live in it. Does this mean that Serbs are not included among all citizens and vice versa? Vice versa actually makes sense since not all of the citizens are Serbs. But since we already mentioned Serbs separately, and I dont know why we did, they have to be included among all citizens, it is only logical. I dont know if lawyers occupy themselves with such matters but they really should, especially when the countrys most important legal document is concerned. The problem with such a division is that the Serbian state acts as a unifier to all this. The Republic of Serbia a state of the Serbian people and all the citizens who live in it, ok, based on the rule of law and social justice, principles of civil democracy. How is it based on principles of civil democracy and how do the Constitution and its makers define civil democracy if Serbs arent even citizens? Between the preamble and the first article that reads Considering the state tradition of the Serbian people and equality of all citizens and ethnic communities in Serbia and the Kosovo part it goes on to say the citizens of Serbia adopt the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia. If we defined the citizens of Serbia as all non-Serbs does that mean that the Constitution is adopted by the citizens of Serbia who, by the Constitutions definition, arent Serbs? What I really want you to pay attention to is that if you want to claim to have a civil society you cannot divide people on ethnic principles. You singled out Serbs on ethnic principles but claim that your state is a civil democracy, so why the ethnic principle? And then we wonder why journalists write as they do. Why is a criminal of Roma nationality described as such while, in case of Serbs, ethnicity isnt mentioned. So whenever you read a newspaper you read about Albanian and Roma criminals, thieves and rapists which you begin to remember as a kind of a template that becomes a part of social awareness by which Roma, Albanians and the rest commit murders etc. In the end why does someones ethic origin even matter? When is that relevant? What is relevant is when someone is a victim of a hate crime, when someone is beaten up for being Roma. I believe that if someone conducted a serious language analysis it would become clear which political structures insisted on introducing the terms like Serbian, Serbian people etc. It was most likely DSS attempting to reconcile the so called civil democratic ideology of the Constitution makers, with the nationalistic one. If you put together an article 49 that forbids one thing but then allow for people to be divided on ethnic grounds youre digging your own hole. This isnt hate speech,

94

Ill say it once more, the preamble and the first article of the Constitution arent hate speech but they support a view of the world, state and society that allows hate speech to develop. So much for now. Zoran Petakov: Thank you Senka. I would like to ask you one more question because I know youve dealt with it and now youve touched upon the issue during your speech. When, for example, two groups of young men in Serbia come into conflict and someone ends up beaten up or stabbed, the news report that in a conflict between two groups of youths cold weapons were used injuring two people. However when the conflict occurs in a mixed population area then it wasnt two groups of young men but, for example, Serbs and Hungarians. So what you have observed can be seen daily in some media. What effect can it have on someone who reads, hears and absorbs such stories every day? You touched upon that issue and I would like you to elaborate a bit more. Senka Gavranov: Constitution articles dealing with preventing discrimination are very good. However, if you have a preamble and a first article that define your country one way it seems hypocritical to make a different claim later on. As for the discourse practices in the media whenever theres an incident based on ethnicity, race, sexual orientation or otherwise there are several strategies in use. One of them is manipulation of the active and passive moods. For example, if Americans bombed Iraq and we want to correctly convey the news through the media discourse well say: Americans bomb Iraq. That way it is known who carried out the act and where the responsibility lies. If we want to avoid that we can say: Iraq has been bombed. Simply put the sentence into passive mood. If we want to erase any trace of responsibility we can simply use some impersonal form and say: Bombardment of Iraq takes place. Youll hear the same things about the former Yugoslavia conflicts like: A war occurred. A war doesnt occur. There are participants and victims. Thats manipulation of the active and passive mood as well as nominalization. Verb to bomb, Americans bombed is transformed into a noun bombardment, a gerund or rather a verbal noun. This is easily avoided by simply saying who did what. One needs to stand behind his or her words and take responsibility, people dont beat themselves up. Another example can be seen in sexist speech. Imagine a husband who beats up his wife, shes laying on the floor unconscious, he call the ambulance

95

and doesnt say I beat up my wife but My wife has been beaten up. He is avoiding responsibility for his actions. Zoran Petakov: Thank you Senka. Nows the time for questions so if you have any please ask. Question 1 (Branislava Kosti): Lets go back to hate speech. Weve heard some great presentations here but I would like to return to the topic at hand. So lets start with tonights examples. Problem with hate speech is that it really sticks on and creates a hate speech context. Whats the problem here? First, the media exist in a market and, as you said, certain resources are necessary. In dictatorial regimes they the media are financed by the regime itself while in supposedly democratic societies they are sustained by the market. Dinko, why were the media able to publish all the things we wrote about in 95 for all those years? Because they were financed from abroad of course. Today that money is gone so B92 has to broadcast things like Big Brother, Trijumf etc. Is there perhaps confusion regarding the importance of hate speech? How did it contribute to the collapse of Yugoslavia? It did one key thing in 89. Near the end of 89 a public opinion analysis was conducted on the entire ex-Yu territory. A valid sample taken from all republics and provinces showed that 79% of SFRJ citizens wished for Yugoslavia to remain united. National animosity was marginal except towards Albanians and the Roma but even that didnt hold true for all regions. So science would say that there was no real possibility for ethically motivated conflicts. That was also true for Bosnia. But was there a bloody war in Bosnia? Yes. How did it happen that, in just one year, those same SFRJ citizens began killing each other? Thats the problem. Thats the issue of hate speech. How did it become so powerful? How could the media completely overturn the publics mind set so quickly? How did they do it? Dinko explained a part of it. Whats the problem with todays media speech? Hate speech seams to be allowed in our society and thats only because it is allowed in the media. Now let us be clear. Hate speech in Serbia is prohibited by three constitutional laws: The Law on Radio-Diffusion, The Telecommunication Law and The Public Information Law. They all explicitly prohibit hate speech but, and its a big but, there are no sanctions for it within the law. When hate speech appears on one side it automatically begins to multiply on the other sides too. The Serbian media system, as well as that of the Croatian and other Yugolsavian

96

media, was formed in conditions of war and as a consequence it was normal that, in time of war, the enemy would become something that is opposite to your people to whom it must be explained that it is honorable, important and a matter of duty to fight the enemy. In all wars the enemy is always the embodiment of evil and it is important for the public to perceive them as such. What happened in SFRJ during the period of 89 - 90 was that every independent state (a former republic) had only one goal and that was to stigmatize the other side as the embodiment of evil even if it meant making up new terms. So, in the Croatians view Serbs were butchers and from the Serbian perspective Croatians were the butchers even though they charged each other to the same music. You know that song that is sung in Serbia to the words Marirala, marirala kralja Petra garda (They marched on, marched on, King Peters guards) that was also sung in Croatia to the same melody but with the words u boj u boj za narod svoj (to battle, to battle, for your people). The goal of the media or rather hate speech was, and is, to portray the other side as something evil that any honorable man should resist and fight. Hate speech is always a signal and very often a trigger for allowing harm to be inflicted upon the other side. The problem with hate speech is always the same. The one who is opposite from us, who is a member of THEY regardless of his religion, ethnicity or opinion, always needs to be characterized as evil. Evil that our side needs to fight with all our strength. That kind of speech is still present in our political discourse but unfortunately also in our public speech because that relic of war-time speech still endures and by which anyone who doesnt think the same way is automatically the enemy and subsequently not a worthy human being. Dinko Gruhonji: You certainly remember, and I as a Bosnian know, that one of the first goals of ex JNA in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) was to capture the tv repeaters. Ill repeat, first they captured the transmitters and then followed the events in Prijedor, Sarajevo and Srebrenica. In my Banja Luka where, out of geographical convenience, we were watching TV Sarajevo 1 & 2 and Zagreb 1 & 2 suddenly in Autumn of 91 we started receiving TV Beograd (TV Belgrade). I dont like to blame the media, they were merely tools in the politicians hands. Why did they go for the transmitters? Recently I heard that, according to some research, people in Serbia, on average, watch TV less than 5 hours a day. To me thats frightening. That means that television has, as it did then, a profound effect on our lives. Traditionally, peoples

97

who are exposed to such media controlled by dictatorial regimes equate television with government authority. Thats because they perceive television as an undeniable authority through which the president addresses them. And in the tradition of these peoples the country is their mother and mother needs to be obeyed hence the TV needs to be obeyed. So even today youll hear some simple man tell an outrageous story and when you ask him where he heard it hell say: It was on TV. Notice the impersonal and neutral it. That it is the reason they captured the transmitters first, so that all that followed in BiH and Croatia could transpire. Criminal responsibility of journalists is an issue that we as an association attempted to touch upon after October 5th. Except Florens Artman who is to appear before tha Hague Tribunal this Spring, albeit for completely different reasons, none of the former Yugoslavia journalists have been charged with any kind of crime. I spoke to the people from the Tribunal and they said there were attempts to compile charges against advertisers of war propaganda who were, unfortunately, quite numerous. However, according to their legislative thinking, the problem is that their criminal responsibility needs to be proven. Allow me to point out the relationship between what Miljana Baleti said when she came to do a report over Dubrovnik and the victim of the grenade that soldier fired. Now thats the legal catch when journalists are concerned. Unlike former Yugoslavia, the Rwanda Tribunal convicted two journalists. There was a radio station that openly called for genocide. Our journalists were always making some vague statements but the ones in Rwanda were very open with exclamations like Kill them like cockroaches, or Dont shoot them, use the machetes so there were no problems with rising charges against those two idiots. There were no problems because there was plenty of evidence and clear lines could be drawn between what they were saying and what happened on the field resulting in almost a million deaths. As for hate speech and what youre saying I must admit I disagree with some details. There was a wonderful little incident in Helsinki Committees school of democracy when Pera Lukovi, believe it or not, came to hold a lecture to young students about hate speech. Pera went on a tirade cursing everybodys mother and father and these kids 17 and 18 years old were listening and they couldnt believe what they were hearing. They didnt know who Pera Lukovi was or what the case was about and once he was finished he said: Ok, any questions?. One boy shyly raised his hand and said: Excuse me Mr. Lukovi but, what you were saying, was that

98

hate speech? and Pera said: No, youre telling me I was using hate speech?, and even started to attack the boy. Pera is actually a kind of a loudspeaker for what were all thinking. I live with pretty interesting company, my neighbor who lives below me, an ex TVNS journalist, is a well known warmonger, now living in my building enjoying his retirement days. The neighbor above me is an ex officer of the Uice corps and I wont waste words talking about things he did. So I live in a sandwich between a warmonger and a lieutenant-colonel and now Im not supposed to use hate speech. Well I wouldnt use it if they had answered criminally or morally but as a human being I have to use such speech. So I always remember that and use it as a convenient counter-argument in situations like, for example when Thomas Mann was asked about the Nazis he would always swear. Why? When he was asked about why he was using profanities, being the father of modern German literature and language, he said it was because it was the only language the mob and riffraff could understand. We are still suffering the consequences of our societys lack resolve to conduct a lustration. We live in a society where its perfectly normal to invite Mladen Obradovi from Obraz or Firer (The Fuhrer) to the Rex movie theater and then even call on me to represent the other side. What other side? Even the Serbian MUP, being the way they are, have characterized them as clero-fascist and neo-nazi organizations. Upholding the freedom of speech does not mean allowing fascists to speak. Fascists are enemies of democracy who deserve the police baton, not to be brought to the media where they can accuse me of using hate speech against thugs. Well, Ill use it always. The fact that Komrakov wasnt lustrated or held responsible for his crimes, not to get all pathetic over all the children they murdered, isnt my fault. But since I know what happened, being a witness to the times, as a citizen I have the right to at least say who that man is in public without being accused of spreading hate speech. Thank you. Senka Gavranov: It needs to be clear that hate speech is directed against individuals and groups based on their ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, age or even language. I, for example, could never offend anyone and use words like stupid cow, worthless dog etc., I just couldnt but it is still just an insult, not hate speech. What Im afraid of is trivialization of hate speech. In the case of Dinko Gruhonji you can call him out on manners, courtesy, respect, ethics, whatever you want but you cant say hes using hate speech. I agree with not using insults and curse words but you mustnt call them

99

hate speech because then you trivialize it. Branislava Kosti: Linguistic analyses of hate speech show that there is indeed a lot of confusion among our people when it comes to differentiating between private remarks and hate speech. Still, our media laws are very clear in their definition of hate speech. I repeat, our problem is, and Dinko is right in pointing it out, that not only was there no lustration but our public wasnt ready to analyze the medias effect in a transparent way. I completely respect Dinkos justification but on the other hand, at some point, someone will probably gather the courage and ask. Does Pera Lukovi, in the name of all hes done for us and our debt to him, have the unrestrained right to insult anyone who comes his way? But thats not the topic of this discussion. Dinko Gruhonji: Pera Lukovi created his own genre during the 90s, hes always been like that. Now Im not going to play his defense lawyer here but what I want to say is that, in post October 5th Serbia Miodrag Popov won a legal case against Pera Lukovi. The same Miodrag Popov who did that report wearing a uniform and helmet. So Pera, being who he is, said: Are you people crazy, that man was a warmonger!. Thats the scream, the wail, that instead of me he had the courage to let out. And this guy sues him for defamation, wins the case and no one makes a sound. Not only does no one make a sound but, following October 5th, Pera Lukovi is unable to publish his work anywhere in Serbia. Nobody would publish his texts. So he published in Feral, in BiH Dani and now he has an e-paper. So I come back to the unjustice, but that was always his style. And if you remember that orava kutija (The Blind Ballot Box) in Vreme, that was sotire, special kind of literary genre. It was a kind of heavy satire where Pera handed out roles to politicians and then made fun of them in a very amusing way. Feral published a book of his called Godine raspada (The Years of Dissolution) that can serve as a kind of a fascinating historical account of former Yugoslavia. He always wrote that way, I could even defend him on literary grounds and say that it wasnt hate speech. Milo Pankov: I would also like to answer a part of the famous dilemma about how did all those peoples suddenly become victims of hate speech. One part of my research dealt with that question which I didnt mention in my opening presentation. If were going to be discussing this there is a more precise chronological line depicting

100

the phases of stereotype development. In the first phase when were analyzing specific participants in the conflict and their actions and starting with neutral journalistic forms, it is normal to say that military units conducted certain operations or that two army groups are engaging on the battlefield, that is a completely neutral situation and isnt something unreasonable. Those kinds of war journalism also exist. However, the first signs of hate speech appear when instead of reporting on specific factors generalization start to be made. For example, in regard to the Slovenian War and Slovenian leadership: Slovenians dont like us, they want to separate and gradually those sentiments get applied to the whole country and its people. On the other hand we also have the Balkanism phenomenon. The western media and the whole western discourse applied this phenomenon of orientalism, as Said named it, which also included the former Yugoslavia territories giving birth to the Balkanism stereotype which made the citizens of Serbia and other allegedly primitive republics its victims. It portrayed them as primitive peoples unworthy of Europe and European society and was also used by Slovenian television. Thats as far as it got during the Ten-Day War which lasted a very short time and ended with politicians on both sides (Slovenian and Serbian) acting as if they wanted to simply forget it ever happened. The territory was divided, the military also and everyone went their own way. Further phases were reached in BiH and Croatia in such a way that the accountability of whole peoples and states became a kind of metaphor. So Muslims werent Muslims anymore but Mudzahedins, Serbs became Chetniks etc. Let me go back to Van Dijks socio-cognitive theory. One observation of mine that relies on his theoretical suppositions is that the motivation for hate speech indeed lies in the peoples rooted fears and historical memories. Certain expressions and motifs were deliberately used to, for example, allude to World War II with the goal of once more triggering those fears and using them to saw hate. Of course not before adequate military and media preparations were made. Zoran Petakov: Ok, I dont believe there are any more questions or floor requests? No. Very well. Thank you all for coming. Next week at the same time and place we will again be talking about hate speech but well be concentrating on its use after the October 5th 2002. and the way it continues to be used in our media even after the so called democratization of our society and the democratic electoral victory of 2000.

101

Transcript of the panel discussion: HATE SPEECH IN THE MEDIA: SERBIA AFTER 5TH OF OCTOBER 2000TH

December 16th 2008 Youth Center CK13

Participants: Teofil Pani (journalist, magazine Vreme, Belgrade) Tomislav Markovi (journalist, web magazine e-novine, Belgrade) Petar Atanackovi (historian, Novi Sad) Moderator: Milo Perovi (sociologist, Novi Sad)

102

Milo Perovi: Good evening and welcome to the second panel discussion on hate speech organized by the CK13 Youth Club. This time we have with us Teofil Pani, journalist and columnist of the Vreme weekly paper, Tomislav Markovi, also a journalist and an e-paper assistant editor and Mr Pavel Domonji who was prevented from attending and will this time be replaced by Petar Atanackovi, historian and also an e-paper correspondent. Last time we defined the notion of hate speech and talked about its presence in the media, especially during exYu conflicts and we saw how something that starts with public speech may grow into actions with terrible consequences. So, having went through that period of recent history, today well be talking about the presence of hate speech in the media following the year 2000. and its so called democratic changes within Serbian society. The first question I would like to begin with and direct it at Mr Pani is what has changed in public speech after the year 2000. since its form seems to have changed but not the essence. Sometimes the situation seems to be even worse than it was in the 90s and today it look like its even more dangerous to take a critical stance towards the nationalistic ideology and its agitators in the media. So, have there actually been any significant changes in public speech since 2000? Teofil Pani: It would be difficult for me to answer that question with a simple yes or no and then expand upon that answer with just a few sentences. In my opinion these things are far more complicated. On one hand the period following October 5th has been marked by a higher degree of freedom in public speech a more expressed media pluralism and the fact that, conditionally speaking, some of the harder walls erected around the media by the old regime have fallen so a degree of success seems to have been achieved. And this seemed to work for a while after October 5th. However it quickly became apparent that the empire was striking back quite successfully and in several ways. One of those ways is the appearance of these poisonous, pseudo-political tabloids that have infected the media space. If you think back these tabloids were practically non-existent during the 90s. Theyre all phenomena of the post 2000 period. Take for example papers like Kurir, Nacional, the now late Press and others, they all came to existence in the period following October 5th and most of them actually appeared after the death, or rather murder, of Zoran ini. So all that used to be propagated via RTS or Politika has now moved onto the tabloids and in a different way to the internet but well talk about that later,

103

right? And I believe, that by moving into this kind of underground, hate speech has actually gained a new momentum and a new form directed at the masses lowest instincts making it in a sense even more powerful and penetrating that it was. So, in that sense, it could be argued that a step backward has been made. Of course someone could say thats one of the side effects of freedom and there is some truth to that. But that kind of freedom lacks any kind of regulations. Its like equating a soccer match that follows certain rules in both teams interests with 22 hooligans meeting on a grassy field to beat each other. And now you could say its legitimate, if people want to fight they have a right to. Well, they dont! I mean, if we want to live in an ordered community they really do not have that right. Some basic rules have to exist, not in the form of censorship but in the sense that it has to be known which things are impermissible in ethical and civilizational contexts, which are the things you simply cannot do to other people. And that is where the Serbian media failed. They failed in a sense that they allow for one childish answer for everything. That answer is well, thats what the people want or everyone has a right to an opinion so some people are pro-genocide, some are against and were supposed to discuss them as equal points of view. That kind of nihilistic pseudo-debate where all values are equal is nothing more than an invitation for a society to not have any values at all. That, for me, is the general image of the post October 5th period. So if before October 5th we had one terrible center of power that was dictatorial, domineering and full of censorship which we could safely hate, after October 5th it has become decentralized and has moved into the so called private sector where its much less vulnerable. This is because it doesnt have just one head, there is no single, fixed and clearly outlined enemy like Miloevi was so its free to spread all over. Of course, just so its clear, that kind of speech still has plenty of consumers which is not to be ignored. Milo Perovi: A part of this answer was a good introduction for my next question which I will pose to Mr Atanackovi and which is related to the aspect of the post 2000 period Teofil was just talking about. After the year 2000. there was an explosion of the so called political tabloids in which we can find some of the most extreme examples of hate speech. In your opinion what social movements stand behind these kinds of media and how large is their influence on public opinion? Petar Atanackovi : It is difficult to say which movements are behind that. Teofil just

104

said that after the year 2000. there was a shift from the state to the private sector. So its no longer the state media but the private media which naturally raises the question of the source of those medias capital. It also raises the question of the methods they use, the papers like: Kurir, Glas Javnosti, Press, Pravda etc. Methods which are not only far away from professional ethics or the journalistic code but any kind of ethics. I believe they are the first who introduced the method of ordering custom texts where you basically pay the media and they write and publish the text, lead the campaign, it all depends on the size of the investment. We can only guess whos behind that. They are some kind of para-organizations that became especially prominent during the first and second term of Vojislav Kotunica although their beginnings can be traced to Zoran inis government. Besides, these media played a significant role in the campaigns led against ini and we all know how they ended, with murder. As far as yellow press goes it is not new to Serbia although it hasnt been active in this form for decades. To tell the truth, something similar to this did exist between the two World Wars, tabloids like the Beogradski dnevnik and Balkan. If we all go back a few years well remember that there existed a paper with the same name and similar yellow press tendencies. I had the opportunity to go over those old Balkan issues from the 35, 36 and 37 and compare them to todays tabloids and it seems to me that some of their editors and financiers have actually read some of those old yellow press papers. Still, its quite possible thats not the case but rather, as Toma recently said when we talked, that the whole pattern is simply being repeated. So, during the 30s the tabloids writing style was very similar to the one used today. They led their campaigns in similar ways against politicians by spreading hate speech with the difference being that back in the day the tabloids were dominated by an antisemitic theme which is, in a way, logical due to the Nazis triumphs in Germany at the time. So even then, the Yugoslavian papers, especially Balkan constantly wrote about, for example, whos to blame for the decline of our shoe makers, how Jews were sabotaging our economy, things like that. If we look at things that way hate speech is hardly new. What is worrying is that 70 years have passed since Balkan published their paper but we still see the same patterns, the same kind of speech which is very disturbing. Of course the public opinion is as it is, the data shows that the illiteracy rate in Serbia is 3-5% but how many of those 95% are truly functionally literate and able to understand the context of what they read? It is the social context of media activity and the general backwardness and semi-literacy that are the real

105

problem in my opinion because such circumstances are ideal breeding ground for the aforementioned para-organizations and movements. Milo Perovi: Yes, now that youve mentioned those campaigns the tabloids use as an example of hate speech, recently we have had an opportunity to witness one such campaign directed against the Serbian Helsinki Committee or more precisely against its president Sonja Biserko who was exposed to the most obvious kind of hate speech coming from those very tabloids. The occasion for those attacks was the Helsinki Committees annual report on human rights in Serbia for the year 2007. So I direct this question at Mr Markovi: What was it, in your opinion, that provoked these attacks, from what social circles did they come from and what was their methodology? Can you give us an analysis? Tomislav Markovi: Well, actually that HC report stood on display for months on the HC website and nobody made a fuss about it until the moment Slobodan Antoni also known as Ruho ran out of ideas or acquired some deeper reasons for starting that campaign. He is generally well known for finding enemies in need of extermination at every step. I found his previous campaigns against Peanik quite interesting when he branded all listeners of Peanik as a sect. It was an interesting choice of words. He claimed that listeners of Peanik gather on Friday nights to listen to Peanik. That sounds quite bizarre to me since a gathering is when a group of people gathers in one place but Peanik is listened to over the radio, not played over loudspeakers on Rebublic Square Teofil Pani: For now Tomislav Markovi: For now, but there are indications thats about to change. Its interesting that he used the term sect, the appropriate term would be small religious community, not sect. He used that term to portray them in a negative light, to proclaim them an enemy to be eradicated. Not only are they political opponents gathering around a radio show but theyre also a sect, a parallel pseudo-religious organization which needs to be dealt with in an obvious way. Another interesting example is when he referred to the members of other Serbia as zombies. That was another attempt to portray those who do not share his opinions as a kind of

106

non-humans, something outside the political framework. Nazis did the similar thing in their anti-semitic campaigns during the 30s. They described the Jews as different kinds of critters that need to be eradicated. That kind of rhetoric is very common in our extreme right wing movements. Something similar was used by Emir Kusturica I think, his example was interesting too. In that famous Kosovo is Serbia meeting he referred to people as mice and mice, as we all know, arent human, theyre pests, mice need to be exterminated. So that kind of rhetoric is interesting indeed. Now lets go back to the story of Sonja Biserko and the Helsinki Committee, its a recurring motif of our media lives anyway. Slobodan Antoni published a text in Glas javnosti where he claimed that Sonja Biserko and the HC hound our intelligence, our national, cultural and other elite, how theyre the enemy working at the behest of their foreign financiers and supervisors and how they oppose Serbian interests and that was the trigger. The day after a number of media like Veernje Novosti, tabloids etc. all emerged from the woodwork to call those national dignitaries to ask for their opinion. Their reaction was to bring all guns to bear on Sonja Biserko. And it really is fascinating, the choice of those supposed dignitaries, what was in that HC report and why did they get so angry. They were upset because Sonja Biserko and her associates who worked on the report quoted what they had said. So they merely quoted what was said about the spread of nationalism that is still strong in Serbia and seems pretty unstoppable and is a kind of an obstacle to our European integration. Basically they were angry for having been quoted. Nobody made any false statements, nobody used the method of lying like Slobodan Antoni did with his editing and placing words out of context to create a false impression about what was said. All of this went pretty far so, for example, Dule Savi made a statement which was used as a title in a sports journal, the Sport maybe, and which said: They want to kill me. As if Sonja Biserko had some kind of a special ops unit. They basically reversed the roles. They did everything they could to present themselves as victims when in fact they have profiteered from the whole process that went on during the 90s. Except for this Dule Savi, whos a big patriot now, a member of the RTSs managing board and other institutions and who bravely led the charge fighting for something in Paris as far as I remember, the second most interesting case is that of Vasilije Kresti. He is an academic, one of the authors of the Memorandum, the man who coined the famous phrase genocidal people and proclaimed Croatians as genocidal and is also one of the cartographers of Great Serbia and that whole story that started all the

107

hate and wars. Im talking about the story of theirs that Miloevi who until then was just a communist apparatchik assumed as his own and then imposed during the 90s. He was serious about it for a while but later they became disappointed with him because, there you have it, he wasnt dedicated enough to the wars so they all became this great opposition, Matija Bekovi, Dobrica osi and others. Anyway, all those people were angry for being quoted but that wasnt the end. The Faculty of Law was mentioned in the HC report as the nesting place of the anti-Hague lobby so the following day the faculty published a great article in their defense in Politika and Veernje Novosti listing all the good things that are being done at the faculty and that is all true but thats not all there is. People like Kosta avoki and Oliver Anti teach at the faculty and the famous panel discussion under the name Istina o Srebrenici (The Truth About Srebrenica) was also held there. The discussion only managed to be held on the second try because the first try was supposed to have been some kind of a celebration of the liberation of Srebrenica, some kind of an anniversary maybe. They dont believe any kind of genocide happened there, in their view Srebrenica was merely liberated from civilians very efficiently and during the Istina o Srebrenici discussion, among others, Ljiljana Bulatovi also spoke telling a pretty morbid tale about how their graves are on Serbian land now and how Muslims should transfers those graves to their land because its obstructing fertile Serbian soil thats waiting to be domesticated and developed. Now I really dont believe that a bunch of bones could get in their way, its not like lettuce isnt going to grow right which would really bother them. Its one of the most morbid things I heard coming from there. But the hunt for Sonja Biserko doesnt end there. There were some reactions in other media, Teofil wrote about it, we wrote something in the e-paper and there were some reactions against that hunt in other media but all of that resulted in that march. In those days protectors and defenders of Radovan Karadi still marched and gathered on Republic Square to protest his arrest. They are obviously people who support genocide and military operations of Radovan Karadi. So they made a little stop outside the HC building, shouted some slogans and stuck a swastika. Thats also interesting. People who support a fascist ideology stick a swastika and proclaim you a fasist. Finally two unknown men waited for Sonja Biserko outside her apartment, she called some of her friends who quickly showed up and in the end nothing happened but there was certanly potential for a physical showdown.

108

Teofil Pani: Its important to mention that her adress was published allowing them to find her. Tomislav Markovi: Her personal adress was released in the media. Thats the kind of witch hunt that is consistent with what I wrote about S.Antoni whatever he looks to, the Obraz jump to, whatever he writes about, they strike at. Thats actualy his intention but he presents himself as the endangered party which is, in my opinion, an interesting twist. Things have changed today but during the 90s anything could have happened. When that famous text about uruvija was published he was murdered soon after. That doesnt happen today, instead they scare you a little, attack you a little but these things shouldnt be taken lightly. Under different circumstances if the situation got a bit more radical violent incidents would almost certainly occur. Thats what they actually want but S. Antoni is playing Mr. Nice so he doesnt quite want to put it that way. Teofil Pani: I would only like if youd let me... I just realized that I forgot to answer the second part of your question so before you ask me another I would like to add something and, in a way, build upon what you just said. Basically what you asked was, Was it more dangerous to speak against nationalism then than it is today? Well, the structure of fear has changed or rather the direction danger is potentially coming from. One could say that during the 90s it was the state we had to fear, UDBA (State Security Directorate), military, paramilitary, police and pseudo-police structures. War, crime and the mob, it was all bundled up together and we, as people involved with the media, can testify to that with the examples of our murdered colleagues like Dada Vujasinovi and Slavko uruvija. So first of all it was fear, fear of the state and its opressive apparatus. After October 5th that fear of the state has decreased immesurably which is logical and thank God for that. If we hadnt managed to gain at least that then it would have all been for nothing. Today, on the other hand, the old fear has been replaced by fear of society so to speak. Just one part of society of course, the part that leans towards extreme rightist behavior and that is, today, a lot more brazen in that behavior than before. Why is that? Partly its because Miloevis regime itself contained nationalistic movements so propagation of nationalistic ideas meant being a person of the regime by default which didnt appeal to some of the right wingers. But after October 5th the situation became such that the governments

109

became pro-European, democratic etc. This allowed any malcontent to proclaim himself a great opponent of the government system by throwing accusations at traitors, foreign mercenaries, non-Serbs etc. which creates an atmosphere of anger and frustration which should not be underestimated because, as history has shown us, such a situation is a breeding ground for fascist movements and all that. And when you see all those young people full of rage, hate and unbound aggression but also, it has to be said, boundlessly illiterate and ignorant yet very confident at the same time, what you see is a product of Miloevis era but also of the postOctober 5th political formation. They believe that any advocacy of democratic ideas is sort of mainstream, not the real thing, not radical enough. Since the radical left is something that only exists in traces the only direction left to go in, as in most east European countries, is the radical right. They all think its very hip but realistically what they find to be hip can turn into a big problem for society. I think it needs to be emphasized that what was coming from the direction of the state regime during the 90s has stopped or become marginalized and is now primarily coming from people whom I call freelance nut jobs. The kind of people who run into you in the street, and that doesnt mean that someone from the BIA (Serbian Intelligence Agency), or some such organization, ordered that person to, no they simply do it on a whim. Milo Perovi: So the danger is no longer coming from the top but the bottom? Teofil Pani: Exactly, and thats the problem. Milo Perovi: Yes, its been mentioned a few times and after the year 2000. those so called democratic governments have gone through several transformations. Members of those radical movements continually call upon all kinds of freedoms, I dont know where they get the idea but ok, so freedom of speech keeps being mentioned and flipped around without there being a clear definition what freedom of speech entails. That is why we get numerous examples where freedom of speech is being used to justify the advocacy of various fascist organizations and individuals. Do, does the propagation of fascist ideas in public speech fall within the definition of free speech? Teofil Pani: It very much depends on a countrys historical context. Our extreme

110

right wingers often call upon examples, especially in the Anglo-Saxon world, where tolerance towards a certain kind of fascist public speech is much greater than in continental Europe. The reason for that is that the Anglo-Saxon world has no experience with organized fascist movements, they never lived through something like that. Its much easier to be tolerant towards something that hasnt traumatized your society. But it was certainly traumatic in America, the birthplace of the famous politically correct speech where not only can you not use the word nigger since its considered offensive but you cant even say black person anymore. Instead you have to say African American which is sometimes a bit comical. If I see a black person coming towards me how am I supposed to know hes an African American, maybe he just came from Chad, right? Still, my point is that they are trying very hard to break off from their own trauma and frustration. That is why they pay so much attention to mentions of race etc. Of course, here in our own continental Europe and especially in Germany that was the epicenter of Nazism, the laws are much more strict. And it is logical for Germany to have the harshest laws against fascist ideologies, we have to approach those things differently because that is something that took away millions of lives here. We cant afford to look at it simply as an abstract academic discussion on the limits of free public speech. Abstract discussion stops where killing starts. Since we have lived through that experience we simply cannot afford to be lax when it comes to such things and thats why its not contradictory to anyones liberal, democratic, social-democratic or whichever convictions to, for example, forbid the display of Ustasha symbols in Croatia or Ljoti ones in Serbia or any kind of generally Nazism related symbols. Its perfectly normal in the context of this society since people died because of it. They were slaughtered for it, driven to camps and out of their homes. Its not a matter of simply disliking certain things and deciding it should be forbidden to talk about them. No. A society safeguards its democracy by forbidding the most extreme forms of symbolic and later physical justification for conducting organized violence on other groups of people. Fascism is never a merely abstract viewpoint. Lets imagine that someone abstractly believed that Jews are an inferior race. Can you imagine a situation where the next step of that belief wouldnt suppose that, being an inferior race, the Jews should suffer some consequences because of it? Its never without consequence, it never remains on the level of abstract belief. Please excuse me, but if Jews are an inferior race the least that should happen to them, for example, is for them to not be allowed to do

111

the same jobs as you and me and with subsequent generations, my god, it all ends with concentration camps, and where else could it end except in the concentration camps? Its always an exchange of theses. When somebody says that prohibition of hate speech is an infringement on freedom of speech and thought its always an elementary exchange of thesis. It comes down to a society acting in self-defense to prevent what is always the first step towards violent behavior towards other people. Milo Perovi: The next question is for my colleague , Mr Atanackovi. Speaking of the members of our Serbian political and intellectual elite, how aware are they of the potential impact of publicly spoken words? I ask this because today, and Ill say it without reservation, we have a crazed foreign affairs minister Mr Jeremi who managed, through a single statement of his, to damage the already fragile relations of in the region. He is supposed to be a member of the Democratic Party which is suposed to be all democratic and non-nationalist. Is it even possible to overcome this pattern of behaviour in Serbias public speech thats seemingly been repeating itself for the past 25 years? Petar Atanackovi: Its obvious that the political elite is completely unaware of the words weight. Their basic problem is that they dont realize that in a civil society, if we wish to call it that, there is a difference between the public and private sphere. So there is a difference between what Vuk Jeremi thinks when hes in a bathroom and what he says as a minister. To a degree thats also the problem of free speech. Teofil spoke about the conviction of some of those pro-fascist circles that their freedom of speech is being infringed upon. Well, nobody is forbidding them to think whatever they want in their private lives and do whatever they want in their private space but they simply cannot be allowed to make such statements publically. Vuk Jeremi is a typical example of non-differentiation between the private and public spheres of life so naturally he also lacks awareness of the words impact. I was recently in Berlin for a different occasion and there I found out what the opinion is on Vuk Jeremi and the opinion is that his best quality, if you can call it that, is that he is able to pronounce the phrase national sovereignty and territorial integrity faster than anyone, and in English too. Thats his main diplomatic feature. So the image is that of a caricature of a man who behaves like a cowboy. Texts have been published in newspapers

112

about how he treats other diplomats. And this negative focus of his on Croatia well obviously hes decided to score political points for himself by unnecessarily eroding Serbias relations with that country. Hes using foreign policy to enhance his domestic political standing. He himself is not aware that hes seriously jeopardizing SerboCroatian relations so hes basically the champion of that type of ignorance. Personal interests are replacing general ones, as Milan Kangrga used to say, it is exactly that kind of exchange of the general with the personal that is in philosophical ethics defined as evil. I dont think that Vuk Jeremi is the only example of this phenomenon: there was a minister by the name of Milan Parivodi who was responsible for the economy and who used to say on public TV that whenever someone mentions Milan Nedi everybody should stand to attention. I wonder what does the minister of international commerce know about Milan Nedi and why is his opinion on him relevant but obviously he had a need to say it. Then theres an even more famous story about an even more famous minister. We all remember the minister of culture Dragan Kojadinovi who, and I heard this from verified sources, during a meeting with representatives from the German embassy and media, stated that there is a great closeness and interest for mutual cooperation between Germany and Serbia etc., which was apparent even back in the 1941 1945 period. This resulted in a large diplomatic scandal provoked by the stupidity of this illiterate minister of culture. The ambassador had to explain that Germany was an anti-fascist country and that he wasnt in the presence of a representative from the Third Reich but the Federal Republic of Germany etc. I doubt that Kojadin understood. Milo Perovi: Its difficult to get ones bearings after this but ok I would now like to open a question that I believe has never been the focus of our public when it comes to hate speech. It has never been talked about as far as Ive heard but recently a masterful text by Viktor Ivani was published in the e-paper titled Nula od ovjeka (The Zero Man). The text talks about a type of hate speech that goes practically unnoticed in public speech. To be more specific, in the text, Ivani describes an advertisement for the Balkan edition of the Forbs magazine the slogan of which says dont be a zero, be seven zeros. He points out the class based hatred represented by the first issue of this magazine. That slogan and the magazines content propagate the idea that youre worth less unless youre at least a millionaire or somebody like Mikovi or Teodorovi or any of the Balkan tycoons.

113

So I would ask Mr Markovi to comment on this so we could open up this topic a little. Tomislav Markovi: I would only like to add something to what Petar said. It doesnt seem to me that Jeremi is failing to keep apart the private and public sphere by mistake. If he had said something that wasnt to Tadis liking somebody would have complained. It is obvious that he is acting in concordance with government policy. The difference is that hes the loudest and most aggressive one. I mean, he is Tadis cabin boy, its not like hes doing anything on his own accord Teofil Pani: He is this administrations Velja Ili. Tomislav Markovi: Younger, handsomer and with more potential plus Tadi likes him more because he used to be his student so I dont think that theres any collision between them. Unfortunately. It would be nice if they believed that Croatia shouldnt be accused and our relations with them compromised but that seems to suit them. I would like to remind everyone that in regard to that Srebrenica discussion at the Law Faculty Tadi said that everyone has a right to express their opinion negating everything weve been talking about tonight. Yes, there are no limits to free speech. It would seem that Tadi is more liberal than we are. And yes, this text by Viktor Ivani Nula od oveka is very interesting because it shows how hate speech enlarges the field of battle. Actually, it seems to me that things have reversed in this situation. In the recent examples of hate speech we mentioned it was the rich, the powerful and the connected who were the minority. I mean fighters for human rights are a minority, the Roma are a minority, people who listen to Peanik are a minority, the leftists also etc. But in this add announcing the Balkan Forbs Ivani has found something completely opposite. It is actually the minority who hold all the power and wealth in their hands, who are well connected and who devalue and spread hate speech among the majority, some 90% of the population, the working class. There is an interesting twist here. All these groups we spoke about have some means of fighting for their rights which is legitimate, natural and normal so nobody from our side asks any questions. But, for example, Ivani claims that workers arent really aware of their status and that they have a kind of invested interest in those in power. Its kinda like that western hatchet and scalpel expression but things are different

114

here. Everything is known here, we more or less know how those seven zero people came to their wealth and that it happened under some pretty illegal circumstances. It has all mostly been legalized today but in that first Forbs issue they give themselves the right to depict everyone else as some kind of non-humans. That is where Ivani draws a parallel between Nazi propaganda that placed Jews outside the social order as something other than human. Now the criteria have changed. If you have money youre human, if not youre nothing and we can do whatever we want with you. I believe that its a problem with our society that people dont complain and rise up against such things. Speaking about those magazines like Kurir or Pravda, I remember watching a celebration of Pravdas 100th issue or something like that on TV, I believe it was that Bajatovis channel. So there they were, Dragan ilas and that whole company, all cheerful, celebrating the circulation of 50.000 copies that the magazine had reached in 3 months. Thats a large circulation rate so people obviously approve of it. It is my impression that during the 90s violence, armed threats and all kinds of torture have created a behavioral pattern in the people here that doesnt really make them keen on complaining and fighting for their rights. I also think that pattern is continuing to spread. A friend of mine is doing a research on prejudice exclusively in Belgrades central high schools and well be publishing the results in the e-paper once its done in 5 or 6 days. The results are pretty damning. On an ethnic prejudice scale of 1 to 3 in one class they (text missing 44:30), which translates to kill them, slaughter them. In 2005 I spoke to a group of 16 year olds in one of Belgrades suburban municipalities. We were talking about Albanians and the class became divided into two groups, boys and girls. The boys were in favor of the swift and brutal solution, simply killing them all, while the girls were somewhat gentler, in line with the fairer gender stereotype, they merely wanted them all banished. We struggled to explain to them that Albanians are people too so thats something at least. This is all, I mean its pretty frightening. Now I dont want to sound like some harbinger of doom but it seems to me that the seed of evil that was sawn during the late 80s and has later again been unearthed from some other cultural patterns by our nationalistic intelligence has given fruit well be fighting against for a long time to come. In Croatia they seem to be gradually moving on to some other topics and I would like for the same to happen here but as soon as we take a step forward some so called proEuropean and democratic government pops out with the likes of Jeremi and sets us back to the beginning. This means we have to deal with the same old issues and

115

topics which is boring. Im tired of writing about Jeremi and other similar things. They keep repeating the same old stories, never moving on to something else. They dont seem to be sympathetic with our journalistic problems. Petar Atanackovi: I would only like to add something to the question of Viktor Ivani and the Forbs magazine. The Feral used to follow the story of the Balkans enlightened newly created wealthy elite. Forbs is the Balkan edition of this magazine, merely the latest thing. Feral had an article about the first Serbian issue of Glorija and it was followed through by an excellent text. They wrote about the streams of champagne, caviar etc. and they recognized in all that a kind of classnationalistic alliance since those were all the heavy nationalistic movements from Croatia and Serbia, from Toni Hulji to Duka Jovanovi who made any semi-well known Serbian person into a globally relevant and historic phenomenon. So those are all those nationalistic structures who became united after the tycoons newly gained class awareness so the nationalistic alliance gained a new class component so to speak although it was always in a twisted and completely perverted Balkan way. Milo Perovi: I would like to ask our guests one more question after which I will give the audience the opportunity to do the same. So, the internet is the new medium with which we dont have much experience. It is well known that the internet is not subject to control and that one can find a plethora of examples of hate speech and fascist as well as pro-fascist web sites on it. There is simply no legal regulation of this medium. So, is legal regulation of this medium needed and should it even be touched by legislation since, as everyone knows, the internet has not only negative aspects in this regard but also many positive ones. Please comment. Teofil Pani: Im not a lawyer so I would rather not get into whether internet can or should be regulated but we may come to that issue via a different road. To be honest I have no idea what the internet is and if it can even be called a medium. Before all how do we define the media? If the internet is a medium then its completely different than any other media that came before it. Now theres a whole series of problems. I have to admit that Im a kind of internet skeptic which is probably one of the most unpopular stances one can take in this day and age because everyone adores the

116

internet. Fascists - antifascists, leftists -rightists, the rich the poor, city dwellers farmers, the intelligent the stupid. God forbid that someone should speak out against the internet as it is. Of course it would be senseless to speak out against any medium as such because it would be like speaking out against the TV or newspapers yet they continue to exist. So whats the problem with the internet? Im looking at it from the perspective of a man who not only himself works in the media but has also been a great consumer of media his whole life, especially their written form. With all of you here being quite younger than me you probably dont remember but until some 20 years ago it was impossible to publish reader mail without also publishing their name and address. You know the whole deal, Pera Peri, Vojvode Bojovia street, no. 13, 21000 Novi Sad so go ahead brother and tell us whats on your mind. Today not only is there no address, name or image, theres nothing, not even you. You can call yourself whatever you want, you can be some old man pretending to be a gorgeous blonde doing who knows what on the internet. That degree of virtualization where personal identity can be completely pushed aside is very appealing to people. We see it as the land of unrestrained freedom. I can do whatever I want, say whatever I want, communicate with whomever I want all over the world, and thats all great. However theres the other side and it is often the more pronounced side I think. It allows people to do all those bad and ugly things to other people, especially in the context of hate speech, while feeling perfectly safe and anonymous. Its an ideal situation for all kinds of maniacs and psychos. Internet is the realization of their utopia. Why? Exactly because it lacks any kind of filtering while were being raised in a culture of permissiveness where any kind of regulation is naively perceived as censorship. Because every classical medium, be it newspapers, television, radio or even the internet if its indeed a medium, they all have editors, people who provide quality assurance and filter out inappropriate material. The internet does away with all that, puts everything in a nice little package and says: Here you go, equal freedom for everyone, for geniuses, for jerks, for this guy or that guy, for love and hate, for intelligence and stupidity, everything is free, everything is equal so knock yourself out. I have to say that I find the degeneration of internet communication in our country insulting. I try not to delve too deeply into that trash heap but every once in a while when I forget myself and end up scouring our forums and blogs I am amazed. Just so were clear, its not a matter of political orientation. Many things I find on the internet about people whom I dislike politically dont appeal to me at all. So its not about our

117

side and their side but the very structure of the internet that brings out the worst in a person. Now someone might insult Teofil Pani while somebody else might analyze the physical appearance of ore Vukadinovi. Please excuse me but I dont believe that discussing the appearance of ore Vukadinovi makes one an anti-fascist. It doesnt make you an anti-fascist it makes you a fool! I mean, if its relevant for you to talk about ore Vukadinovi being fat or having ugly glasses, youre not an antifascist, youre not a leftist nor are you a democrat or a liberal, youre an idiot! And that kind of idiocy is encouraged by the internet. Anonymity is key. Anonymity is the alpha and the omega of this whole story. The very idea of virtualizing your identity, safely tucking yourself in some idiotic nick name and acting from that position whether your ideas are fascist, anti-fascist, liberal, anti-liberal, populist, elitist or whatever, is sick. Nothing good can come from it. It dumbs down public discourse, lowers all criteria, smothers everything in its muck and infects it all with mediocrity. This is simply the time when all classical media have to suffer being branded as conservative simply because they have editors and, God forbid, owners, all the things that internet freedom doesnt have. It all sounds nice when you put it that way but you know what, those other media posses certain professional standards which admittedly they often break so its far from being ideal but some elementary regulation does exist. Imagine a man who writes a newspaper column. He has to be accepted and hired by an editor, he needs to be paid, there are procedures, and in the end his name, and often a photo, are open to the public so any punk on the street can spit on him. Now imagine a man who is utterly frustrated because nobody is inviting him to write newspaper columns. Also imagine there are a thousand people like that and they all believe themselves to be misunderstood geniuses whose chance at proving themselves is being stifled by the evil establishment. You know what happens then? Those thousand people start writing blogs since you dont need any qualifications to do that, you simply open up a blog and type away. Out of those thousand people one may actually be a misunderstood genius, that possibility always exists, but the remaining 999 are proven morons. Now tell me, as an internet user, how are you going to find your way through that jungle to find a single genius in a sea of 999 idiots with a new 999 popping out every day? Theres no end to it. With this I end my soliloquy. For as long as anonymity of participants, subjects, call them whatever you want, remains the basic premise of the internet, the freedom it offers will almost always transform into a sad, laughable, pathetic and when hate speech is concerned,

118

dangerous caricature of itself. Tomislav Markovi: Ah, its difficult to continue after this Yes, its true. Since our e-paper is based on the internet medium, every day were exposed to various comments and often, instead of commentating on the text, somebody will call you a fool or an idiot for criticizing the church as if he was a big fan of it. There are all kinds of disturbing people leaving comments and reading them can be an interesting process. There is a guy called Istok (East) who leaves a comment every time I write about the church, Im his favorite, its unbelievable, a kind of pathological relationship. We always delete his comments if he becomes offensive but we tend to leave all noninsults. But I would like to add something to what Teofil said. Ive been to Krk this year where I talked about the issue which was interesting because I never thought about it much before. Many people who dabble in literature or something similar get the idea to publish their work on a blog but the problem is that a blog has no editor, there is no publication without an editor. Thats the main problem. Teofil said that its better to make your publication in the Re magazine. It probably wont be read by more than 20 people but it doesnt matter, you still managed to publish something, you went through the filter of Dejan Ili, one of our most proficient editors which means there is some talent in you, it all means something. On the other hand the internet can also be used to good effect. I think Ivan Tobi managed to do that, he had a blog on which he started writing a novel with some success but he managed to use that form, that medium, to create something but under his own name. Of course anonymity is very tempting which can result in extreme deviations and instances of hate speech that spread all over. There were several famous groups on Facebook, some still exist, that would open, then close, then open up again, like No, ica, Srebrenica (Knife, Wire, Srebrenica) which was closed than opened again recently with a description for the group saying that it is a group for all people who believe that Muslims are best when skewered or swimming in sulfuric acid. Thats a pretty clear example of hate speech and invitation to violence but no one can stop it because the freedom there is rampant, its actually not freedom anymore but a negation of freedom. One of the most interesting Facebook group slogans was ubij Hrvata da iptar nema brata (kill the Croats so Shqiptars would have no comrades), as you can see they were quite witty here but its the same kind of madness. Besides that there are now many forums and internet social groups where they gather, Stormfront is

119

probably the best known As we can see the internet is a surrounding where this kind of things spreads very fast all over, on all possible forums. They open their own websites like the one Firer has or that man Lui you just mentioned. I mean thats a bunch of people you just dont know what to do with. Their influence is growing I think, expanding all over, and the problem is, as far as I know, the lack of legal regulation so some steps in that area will have to be taken. What applies for the real world should apply to the virtual one as well. Teofil Pani: Yes but the problem is that people are now taking the internet for granted and see it as their democratic right. For example, in some pre-internet era, if you were a reader writing a letter to a newspaper first youd have to buy an envelope and a stamp, get a piece of paper, write the letter, close the envelope, stick the stamp and finally take the letter to a mail box. By the time you did all that your anger has would have probably passed. But lets say youve written your angry letter, its reached the editor, he reads it and throws it away since, by definition, its not publishing material. No one is going to make a fuss about it, the guy who sent it never really expected it to be published, he just needed to blow off some steam. Its the same with those early versions of internet forums like contact talk shows on radio and television. Whenever someone became too offensive or got out of line they simply cut him off. The problem with comments made on the internet, whether its on your e-paper web site or some similar medium, is that whenever you ban someone for being out of line they become outraged because, in their view, the very concept of banning, blocking out somebodys opinion, no matter the reason, goes against that boundless freedom of the internet. That is why that mass perception of the internet as an open ground for all kinds of shenanigans would unavoidably result in frustration because people were promised complete freedom but then, suddenly, that freedom turns out to be less than complete. Right now the internet media are still trying to find their place, some kind of middle ground, and Im not so sure thats going to be achieved quickly because that promised utopia of absolute free speech cannot be attained, without compromising the fundamentals of public discourse. Milo Perovi: Any questions from the audience? If not were done Question from the audience: Tell us something about Graanski list and the media

120

in Vojvodina Teofil Pani: I dont know much about it except the fact that Graanski list changed ownership or rather its ownership structure and that, some time ago, the new owners made some radical changes to the papers editorial policies causing many people to leave. Im not sure if they left voluntarily or were forced out, in any case new people have been hired to replace them. I was fascinated for a while by the sheer emptiness of their content. I would take an issue of the paper and start reading through it only to find literally nothing, not even something to upset me or something negative, simply nothing! All I could find were agency news and things like the TV guide and weather forecast. Nothing else! There was no hate speech because there was no speech, period. Now I havent been following the papers progress during the past month so I dont know if anythings changed but obviously someone thought that Graanski list, as it was, needed to be killed without having any idea what to build on its corpse. It seems to me that Vojvodinas local media arent going to fly too smoothly through this turbulence. The local Dnevnik, Subotike novine, Zrenjaninske novine are all shutting down or being sold to the same group who bought the Graanski list. Basically where there was competition, where there were two newspaper agencies, there will now be only one and that one will be controled by the same group I mentioned just now. All in all its going to end very badly for the few surviving media in Vojvodinas smaller cities. Question from the audience: I am more interested in your opinion on the deliberate dumbing down of every form of media. I am convinced that there is an oversimplification campaign already under way. I am curious to know how far this might go and if anything positive is going to happen again or are we going to experience a total criteria decrease in every aspect of the media? Why was the Feral Tribune shut down? Teofil Pani: Since everyone seems to be hesitant Ill go again I have always worked for the media, Vreme is my first and foremost of course, that are somehow on the fringe with low circulations and that have, since their beginning, always been, lets say elitist. Why not, I dont believe its a dirty word if used properly. In a society where market dictates everything and even if that market is better than the one we have which is a kind of a pseudo-market, whoever wants to search for quality,

121

seriousness and silly things like a cultural column or a book review, imagine that, is self-condemned to marginalization, a kind of poverty. That poverty is pretty relative in the western media. For example, The Guardian is poor compared to the Daily Mail but The Guardian is hardly impoverished. Well, over here, that poverty is literal. That poverty means that people who work in such media live on lowly wages and fees and its impossible to tell for how long it can go on. Thats the position of the media in transitional societies, especially wrecked and fundamentally demolished ones as is the case in Serbia and most ex-Yu countries. In such cases the first thing that suffers is any attempt to keep up some level of quality and standard. That even doesnt have anything to do with the medias history or political affiliation. Take a look at RTS and B92 for example. Those two media have completely different political connotations. Today however, if you exempt a part of their news programs the content of one TV station might as well belong to the other one. B92 radio is still holding its own, thank God, but none of B92s entertainment content would make any less sense if seen on PINK TV. So, as a matter of survival, the TV stations have resorted to deteriorating their content in the name of market demand, which I can understand, but I cant believe that the only way to survive the market is to submit to the idea that the vast majority of people are simpletons who cant absorb anything except the kind of lowbrow content we see today. That is fundamentally untrue. There are a lot of people, I often discuss this with my colleagues, who crave a truly worthy daily newspaper. Ive already written about it and gotten on everyones nerves but since Naa Borba shut down we havent had a daily newspaper that I could read without great reserve and large fundamental objections. Of course the objections I would direct at Politika are different from the ones I would direct at Danas. I mention those two examples because those are the two most serious daily papers we have. What I need is a single newspaper that I can read and then later on place on the table in some caf and say: Yes I read this, it is a part of my identity, just as someone in England would do the same with The Guardian or The Independent or someone in France would with Le Mond, that means something. Here it doesnt mean anything anymore. It doesnt mean anything because all the media have become trapped in the same unfair market game and if you want to exist on the side youre automatically condemned to being marginalized and impoverished. So chose. Tomislav Markovi: I would also like to say something. Recently I spoke to Viktor

122

Ivani and he said something similar. The difference is that in the west theres a margin and its pretty wide but heres its been reduced to zero. And this case with the Feral Tribune, all kinds of things happened there. People had all kinds of objections to that paper but the fact is that EPH (Europa Press Holding) invested large amounts of money to shut them down and even before that they couldnt get a single ad despite having decent circulation. The state was obviously against them. The situation is a bit different in Serbia because theres more variety, we dont have the same kind of media monopoly like Croatia. After Feral ceased operations Predrag Luci and Viktor Ivani were invited by the Novi list and there was a deal that Viktor would begin writing for Novi list while Predrag would write for some weekly paper that was supposed to start out in two or three months. The weekly paper ended up being constantly delayed and Viktor was told to wait a little longer and chill out a bit more. Later they went to this meeting with the new owner of the Novi list, some oil tycoon Jei, they argued for a while and eventually asked him why couldnt they begin writing immediately. As it was they were supposed to get paid without actually writing anything which was pretty interesting. They were told that the paper couldnt afford to inherit their enemies, take on all the people on whose toes they had stepped on. Obviously that professional relationship didnt last long, it was all really bizarre, being paid to not write. There was another similar example with a Novi list correspondent who wrote about some bags that were supposedly of poor quality but were being sold at the Konzum. She sent that pretty trivial text to her editor who ended up calling her and screaming at her for 10 minutes. Why? She simply couldnt understand what was going on and why were the bags such a big deal and then he asked her: You poor thing, do you know who owns the manufacturing of all bags in Croatia?, she said, Well, no., Well, our new owner does.