24 Jun 2010 | Uncategorized
Serbian broadcaster B92 serves as an example of the vitality and evolution of radio.
This is exactly why today it is under siege.
As a leading investigative journalist in Serbia, B92’s Brankica Stanković has been under heavy police protection since December last year, due to threats from neofascist criminal groups masquerading as sports fans.
They have been terrorising the country for years, but first made their notorious reputation as members of paramilitary formations during the outbreak of war in the Balkans in the nineties.
A greater problem, however, are the “big shots! who have been exposed in recent years by this courageous woman on her show Insider, a B92 series of investigative journalism akin to MacIntyre’s hard-hitting UK investigations.
For over two years, the B92 building has been under permanent police protection to guard against possible attackers who appear to have issues with B92’s unbiased, professional and in-depth coverage of controversial issues affecting Serbian society.
B92 representatives frequently go to court to answer accusations in libel cases levelled against the broadcaster by criminals exposed by our investigative journalism.
Our radio network has brought about the creation of a network of independent TV stations; it has forged ahead with Internet convergence and spawned a network of networks involving non-governmental institutions and free-speech movements.
One important member of the B92 family, originating from Radio B92’s PSA campaigns and socially responsible initiatives, is the B92 Fund.
Some of the most successful projects of the B92 Fund include: campaigns promoting breast cancer prevention, including the purchase last year of a mobile digital mammograph thanks to donations by B92 partners; the construction of 4 safe houses in Serbia for victims of family violence, and Food for All — the collection of food for soup kitchens and donations to open new soup kitchens to alleviate the impact of the financial crisis.
B92 is innovative in using social networks and citizen journalism. When combined with the experience, mettle and audacity of B92 journalists acquired during the Balkan wars under Milošević’s totalitarian regime, this yields quality both in mainstream and new media programme content.
Next year, the production basis for all B92 media outlets, particularly B92 Radio and TV B92, will be the multimedia web platform. B92 has always made every effort to remain one step ahead of the media crowd, relying on fresh ideas and an innovative approach to broadcast operations.
B92 has been hit particularly hard by the crisis, which is further compounded by a growing reluctance on the part of media-buying agencies and clients representing local tycoons to advertise on B92 in retaliation for the investigative shows that expose their shady dealings.
Neither investigative journalism nor socially responsible programmes can compete with light entertainment or reality shows in generating audience ratings and market share. Advertising agencies, therefore, show far less interest in such content.
Other countries of the Balkans have similar media companies, which is why we have turned recently to European institutions for assistance.
For over two years we have been calling on the international community to show solidarity with media that are crucial for the development of civil society in their respective countries.
The idea would be to set up a loan fund which would grant favourable loans to broadcasters and print media in the region in order to help them survive the crisis and continue performing their key role as public interest watchdogs.
Unfortunately, it is the tendency of the international community not to recognise a problem until after its escalation, i.e. the point at which it becomes much harder to make a difference.
In the case of independent media, this might well spell disaster.
Not only did such media outlive the criminal and totalitarian regimes, but they made crucial contributions to the overthrow of such regimes and to halting the brutal wars of the nineties. Their survival is key to European integration and to the democratisation of the Balkans. The fate of these societies depends on the fate of such media.
Veran Matic is president of the board of directors of B92
For more on B92, get Radio Redux, the new issue of Index on Censorship, out now
9 Jun 2010 | Uncategorized
Iran has jailed award-winning journalist Jila Baniyaghoob for one year. Her alleged crime: writing “propaganda” against the Islamic regime (i.e. reporting on last year’s disputed election results and subsequent protests). The conditions for imprisoned journalists in Iran are rarely comfortable. But more dramatic than a prison sentence, is the other aspect of this brave woman’s punishment: she has been banned from writing for 30 years. The nature of the punishment reveals how threatened Iran is by her reporting. It looks like an attempt to break her. I suspect it will have the opposite effect.
Every state sets some limits on what can be said or written. But to silence an individual’s voice entirely is an attack on the very notion of free expression.
As well as campaigning for an immediate lift on this sentence and ban, let’s make sure that one side effect is that Jila Baniyaghoob’s writing is read by many more people than would otherwise have read it and that her bravery is celebrated. The severity and crudity of the Iranian gagging measures suggest she has something very important to say.
Here is an example of Baniyaghoob’ courage writing on imprisoned journalists
8 Jun 2010 | Uncategorized
Sometimes censorship is a very black and white issue. Sometimes it is a subject of debate on limits. And sometimes we come up against the, well, “inappropriate”.
Take a couple of stories from this week. Yesterday, it emerged that Miami Living magazine had managed to publish this ad for an online dating agency, featuring a silhouette of male genitalia, to widespread moral outrage.
The ad agency that created the shadow effect seemed quite pleased with itself, saying ” this ‘shadow penis’ ad seems to work and might become a staple of our campaign.”
Miami Living magazine has apologised, saying that no one had noticed the shadow. Now, I’ve laid out magazines. In fact, I’ve laid out magazines quite badly. But I can’t imagine ever missing something like that.
Meanwhile, back in Blighty, Ramsgate hairdresser Marcello Marino has been told to remove a poster of his wife from the side of his premises. The poster, showing the woman in a jacket and tie but NOTHING UNDERNEATH (not even a vest!) has been the subject of complaints. Jocelyn McCarthy of the Ramsgate Society (a local organisation for local people) said that it was distasteful to show “so much cleavage” in a public place. Which seems an odd thing for someone from a seaside resort to say.
Mr Marino was defiant, saying his wife was beautiful (aww) and people need something nice to look at in the recession.
2 Jun 2010 | Uncategorized
Most of us don’t really know what it means to be censored. When it happens, it’s usually small-scale and irritating: an excised joke about Roman Polanski in an article I wrote for the Times is my most recent vexation. Hardly on a par with being beaten by secret police in the middle of the night, I think we can all agree. And besides, I replaced him with Voldemort (in the joke, not socially), so who’s the real victor here? Not Roman Polanski, that’s for sure. His propensity for litigation didn’t make The Ghost a better film, after all. It merely makes him slightly harder to joke about than most evil wizard the world has ever known. One who, nonetheless, has the grace not to sue when you mention his sexual proclivities in the pages of Vanity Fair, which makes Roman Polanski objectively worse than Voldemort on the issue of free speech. Although Voldemort is a little worse than Polanski on the issue of death curses and scarring children with his wand. Thank you. I’m here all week.
But my point is, I never really mind when a joke or a reference has to be cut at the lawyers’ behest. They have a job to do, and their job is (at least in part) to protect me from getting sued. There are people I’m related to who do less to take care of my interests than lawyers I’ve never met. So well done them.
And the best thing about them asking if I could change a line to keep myself out of court is it proves that I tried. By far the most common story on the subject of comedians and bad-taste jokes is that someone (Jimmy Carr, Frankie Boyle) said something terrible, and everyone should grovel apologies and crawl over broken glass until honour is satisfied. And so the narrative about humour in the UK today is that it over-steps boundaries, takes advantage of the weak and vulnerable, bitch-slaps those who least deserve it.
But actually, the narrative of modern comedy should be almost the opposite of that. Far too often, comedians don’t make a joke — during a radio or TV recording — which they think will be funny. They self-censor, in other words. They do this not to avoid the opprobrium of the Daily Mail, but rather because they assume the joke will never be broadcast.
Last week, Radio 4 broadcast an episode of Heresy, which Marcus Brigstocke, Rev Richard Coles and I had recorded a couple of weeks before. During the recording, Marcus did the most articulate, furious rant about the Old Testament’s God you could hope to hear. Rev Coles responded with an equally articulate and passionate response about the redemptive nature of Jesus Christ. To me (a non-believer with an interest in religion), it was electrifying stuff. In case you’re wondering what I was up to during all this, let me tell you: I was thinking about the construct of gods in religious texts to explain the cruel vagaries of nature — earthquakes, volcanos, famine and the like. To the untrained ear, I concede it sounds a lot like I am sitting listening to my fellow panellists instead of earning my keep. Ah, the untrained ear.
But the whole subject wrapped up that night with an assumption that Marcus’ rant and Rev Coles’ response would never be broadcast. 6.30pm on Radio 4? The very thought that anyone would be allowed to make jokes about God seemed insane. And yet, the producer of the programme and (I guess) the controller of the station broadcast it anyway. A funny, thoughtful, balanced debate about God went out in the comedy slot, because it was good. And that wouldn’t have happened if Marcus weren’t the kind of comic that says what he’s thinking rather than worrying about what might get cut.
So this is why I’m glad that I tested the Polanski waters, even when I had to then re-write the joke: not trying is the thing we should fear. Failing is fine.
