That the media is divided like society and that they even look at the same events differently was shown by the analysis "Media reporting on local public gatherings in Montenegro" by the Association of Professional Journalists of Montenegro (DPNCG).
Each media from its angle, reporting on the same topic with a "methodological framework", sent a different message and had a different context. Thus, for some media, the public gathering had support, while for others it was only visible.
Subject analyzes there were local public gatherings in Žabljak due to the construction of bungalows near the Black Lake, protests due to the cutting of cypresses in the grounds of the gymnasium in Bar, gatherings due to the adoption of the Law on Freedom of Religion (Lithia) and a protest by beneficiaries of allowances for mothers with three or more children.
Analysis of the reporting of 13 media (nine portals and four daily newspapers) showed that events/public gatherings at the local level were covered by the media. However, there is a noticeable lack of interest on the part of the national digital media in events that were not related to state politics. Thus, the texts were second-hand, less meaningful and without context analysis.
Media practices that go beyond the scope of professional and objective reporting have been observed, that is, problems in the application of ethical principles arise in reporting.
The texts, especially on the portals, generally have no other side, the headlines are often sensational, and the violation of the code is more noticeable when it comes to events that are in the focus of the public or are related to a political context. Instead of conveying information, part of the media mostly commented on their content at the beginning of the text in the headlines and initially created a distorted picture of the gathering.
In some cases, the portals turned into bulletin boards of certain parties or institutions, not limiting themselves to the content of the messages they send.
The media sometimes refer to unofficial and unidentified sources of information through which information is placed that is sometimes inaccurate, tendentious, and disparaging. It should be emphasized that official identified sources are an essential prerequisite for professional reporting.
Cases were recorded when the media factually reported on gatherings, but did not distance themselves and avoided showing (dis)approval. The analysis also showed that journalists/editors were not sufficiently gender sensitized and that in reporting they put a sign of equality between gender and a certain social group.
Bearing in mind that media coverage and professional reporting on public gatherings are key to the freedom and sustainability of public gatherings and civic activism, continuous education of journalists on the way of reporting is important.
Professional associations, non-governmental organizations, media ombudsmen and the media should organize constant education of journalists and editors about the standards of the European Court of Human Rights and respect for ethical principles from the Code of Journalists of Montenegro in order to know the standards and raise the level of responsibility and the importance of complying with the Code.
Also, professional associations, media ombudsmen and the media should constantly be part of a broad debate about the importance of respecting the Code of Journalists and the most common problems and challenges in its application, as well as publicly promote positive examples of ethical reporting, including public praise, the introduction of awards for ethics in media reporting.
The analysis "Media coverage of local public gatherings in Montenegro" is available at DPNCG website.
This analysis was created within the framework of the project "Journalists for Freedom of Assembly", which is supported through the Program of Small Grants within the project "Assemblies for Human Rights: Freedom of Public Speech in Public Space", which is implemented by the Institute of Alternatives in partnership with Action for Human Rights. and is supported by the European Union. The content of the analysis is the sole responsibility of the author and in no way reflects the views of the European Union and the Institute of Alternatives.
