09. 09. 2005

NEITHER AGAINST VERAN, NOR AGAINST BROADCASTING - ON THE CONTRARY

BELGRADE, September 9, 2005 - I am afraid that my colleague Cveticanin, to put it gently, had forgotten to do his journalist "homework" before he started writing the article announced for today's issue of "Danas" daily and published under these two headlines. The conclusion that "those who were being sceptic when this project began (trial broadcasts), now surely believe that their fifteen minutes have come" is inaccurate, and the speculation that boils down to the fact that Sonja Biserko procured with the US ambassador to cut back on funding of B92 television with the US ambassador because this broadcasting was "counterproductive" was perhaps taken from unofficial sources, but unfortunately even as such it does not prove that, as the journalists like to say "where there is smoke, there is fire". The things are actually quite the opposite. The Helsinki board and I have personally from the very beginning supported that the Slobodan Milosevic trial should be broadcast live. And we have never hesitated, nor have changed our minds, or in any way become differently "enlightened" as far as this is concerned. However, what we have always insisted on, and what our colleague Cveticanin considers a "missed opportunity" of Veran Matic, is not putting an end to the broadcasts, but putting the broadcasts into a wider perspective. This was the opportunity that Veran Matic and his editors failed to do. Most of the commentators they brought to the studio during the intermissions never explained to the audience the context, or the legal implications of the testimonies, but virtually undermined the trial and the Hague Tribunal themselves. They did not play their role of knowledgeable commentators, but acted as sports commentators from The Hague, as if there were our team whom we should cheer for. The broadcasts that could have been very "productive", even educational in sensitising the public to the essence of the Serbian national project and dangerous consequences of nationalism, have been turned into a reversed looking glass in front of which an average viewer had to ask himself the same question over and over again - how did "this man" end up in the ICTY courtroom at all. And this is why the "unruly Seselj, who did not bother to hide the blasphemous traits of his character and his political philosophy" was not "an excellent argument" for the discontinuation of the broadcast, but on the contrary, an excellent argument (and an opportunity) for the final change of the standard list of commentators. The whole situation, however, poses another more serious question, serious for me at least. Why was this subject important exactly at the moment when the witnesses of the Milosevic defence themselves beyond any doubt stripped and confirmed the existence of the national project and the almost plebiscite support that he, unfortunately, had? Options are only in terms of terminology - Greater Serbia, the union of the Serbian countries or the preservation of Yugoslavia as Milosevic intended it. Whereas on one side the commentators of Seselj's testimony, as well as many others, almost unreservedly continue to side with Milosevic, at the same time the articles, such as this one in "Danas" daily newspaper, either on purpose or without it, additionally encourage the public opinion on "putting an end to the Hague issue". Seselj's testimony was announced as an event of which people expected very much. The local public has been watching it not only from their homes, but from their working places as well, even cafes. The rooting pressure and constantly encouraged feeling that "our team" are in the lead can only boost up the already high rating of the Radical Party. This fact undisputedly threatens the positions of Vojislav Kostunica's government, which has the support of the world exactly on the claim that it is the barrier to Seselj's radicalism. This has been confirmed by the PM's advisor to Foreign Affairs Vladeta Jankovic who said that Seselj's testimony damaged the reputation of Serbia. As if the mere fact that there are so many war criminals on the Serbian side in The Hague is not devastating enough? Therefore, I personally support the continuation of broadcasts from the ICTY. Moreover, I urge that B92 television should call in their studio people who can help clarify the reason why the Hague Tribunal is such a precious institution for the future of Serbia, with their knowledge and moral attitude. It is also very obvious that B92 did not find time to talk to lawyer Srdja Popovic, or historians Latinka Perovic, Olga Popovic, Olivera Milosavljevic, Dubravka Stojanovic and many others who could help prevent "this evil intention of bringing back Seselj to our already full backyard" with their knowledge and undisputable authority.