POLITICIANS REFUSE TO COMMENT ON GOOD AND BAD ASPECTS OF THE REFERENDUM ON THE NAME-DISPUTE
The NGO Info-centre, in cooperation with the Macedonian Centre for European Training (MCET), implements a programme for monitoring of media coverage and treatment of European integration processes in Macedonia, under the auspices of the “It Is Time for EU” project, supported by the Foundation Open Society Institute Macedonia (FOSIM) and the Institute for Sustainable Communities (ISC) with funds from United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The analyses includes the coverage in seven daily newspapers (Utrinski vesnik; Dnevnik; Vest; Vecer; Vreme; Nova Makedonija and Spic) and the central news programmes aired on seven TV stations that broadcast nationally and over the satellite (A1 TV; Kanal 5 TV; Sitel TV; Telma TV; MTV 1; Alfa TV; and Alsat TV).
During the period May-July 2009 (the monitoring covers the Mondays’ and Thursdays’ programmes of television broadcasters; and Tuesdays’ and Fridays’ reporting in the daily newspapers), the media focused largely on the following topics:the name dispute with Greece; visa liberalisation; Elections for European Parliament; topics related to the benchmarks and the expansion of the European Union.
The analysis showed that compared to the previous monitored period (February-May), the media improved their reporting and coverage of the topics related to the European integration processes, especially the Elections for the European Parliament and the visa liberalisation process.
There were mistakes in the reporting, due to the media’s limited knowledge and understanding of European integration processes; they often rely on irrelevant sources of information of dubious merit because of inaccessibility of relevant sources of information; lack of time and capacity for proper research and analysis; editorial policies that demands from journalists to cover several different topics simultaneously, which prevents them from acquiring competence and specialise on the given subject matter.
Having in mind the sensitive nature of the name-dispute and the secrecy that surrounds the package offered by the UN Facilitator, the media de facto lack proper access to official information. Within their capacities, the media continue the attempts to play a pro-active role and to bring to the fore issues that politicians and holders of public office avoid to mention, for example, the importance and possible consequences of the referendum on the name of the country.
If we noted, in the previous reporting period, an absence of detailed analysis of the contents of the document listing the steps Macedonia has to implement to ensure liberalisation of the visa regime, this time around we registered that both the contents of the said documents and the procedure were well covered by the monitored media. However, there is still a lack of information on the obligations of Macedonian citizens travelling to EU without visas (for example, the fact that they will have to prove they have enough money to cover the costs of their stay, that they have insurance policies, that they will not be able to stay for more than 90 days per year in the countries of the Schengen Area, that they won’t be able to work there, etc.).
Another topic that appeared during the period covered by this report refers to the bilateral disputes between different countries in Southeast Europe and EU’s role and position in the process of their resolution. The reporting on this topic failed to provide enough information to the citizens so that they could understand that the EU functions, above all, on the principle of solidarity and it will never come forward officially to act against the positions and policies of its member-states, and that it prefers such bilateral disputes to be resolved by the involved countries through negotiations.
One of the key topics that lacks proper analysis – the coverage also exhibits total lack of understanding of the matter – is the issue of regional cooperation as integral part of the Stabilisation and Association Process. It was especially evident in the reporting on the visa liberalisation process, in the contest of relations with Serbia and Montenegro, but also on the issue of the mini-Schengen Zone that would include Macedonia, Montenegro, Albania and Kosovo. The media obviously confuse the regional approach that EU applied before 1999 and regional cooperation which is part of the strategy for Western Balkans’ association to EU, which makes it an integral part of the Stabilisation and Association Agreements as contractual instrument for realisation of the strategy.
As in the previous report, the media’s knowledge of the functioning of the IPA financial instrument is superficial, presenting vague and provisional figures regarding the funds available for Macedonia. During the period covered by this report, it was especially noticeable in the reporting of the Fifth component for development of agriculture, administered by the IPARD Agency.
It’s TIme for EU! – Media Monitoring No.2 (430KB)
About the Author: NVO Infocentar
info@nvoinfocentar.org.mkcontact@nvoinfocentar.org.mk
facebook/NVOInfocentar
