"I've had situations before where the interlocutor, especially when it comes to critically oriented topics, is dissatisfied with my work, but not because of that he makes baseless accusations and in that way discredits me personally, as in the case of the Deputy Prime Minister", says journalist Danilo Ajkovic.
The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Economic Development Nik Đeljošaj, dissatisfied with the way Ajković reported on the trial, accused him, the prosecutor Ivana Petrušić and the judge of the Basic Court Ivana Becić of settling accounts with him and of being corrupt.
Đelošaj, as the president of the municipality of Tuzi, blocked the road in that municipality three years ago, due to measures against the coronavirus, and the trial was interrupted after he invoked immunity.
"I thought that the accusations and threats made by Đeljošaj in December 2022 were in the past, until they were repeated fifteen months later. In all that time, he has not offered any evidence for his claims about my corruption, which is a clear conclusion that his only goal was to discredit me," says Ajković.
"He states that he did not want to engage in controversy with Đeljošaj and enter the political arena.
My case showed the complete passivity of the Prosecutor's Office. "They didn't even take the basic actions within their jurisdiction to assess within the legal deadline whether he committed a criminal offense when he threatened me, the acting prosecutor and the judge," says Ajković.
The journalist adds that every time the authorities, primarily the prosecutor's office, but also the Government itself, remain silent on attacks by public officials on journalists, they actually only contribute to endangering media freedom, which is why we suffer long-term criticism from serious international addresses.
Lawyer Siniša Gazivoda, expert of the Council of Europe on freedom of expression, agrees with this assessment. "Discrediting journalists, especially when they come from positions of authority, represents political interference in freedom of expression," Gazivoda is clear.
He says that the harmful consequences of this behavior are multiple - from the violation of the personal rights of journalists, through the damage caused to the media community, to the fact that this kind of pressure can have a deterrent effect, that is, it can develop self-censorship among journalists to raise topics from the public domain. interest.
"Ultimately, the discrediting of journalists from positions of authority can lead to the development of an environment in which attacks on journalists take place, and there are many such cases," adds Gazvoda.
As he claims, the civil responsibility of the state, under certain conditions, could be twofold. "Firstly because it does not fulfill the positive obligation to create an adequate social environment for the work of journalists. Second, in the case when such pressures come from the positions of the authorities, the state could be responsible for the actions of its officials, says Gazivoda.
He points out that the issue of political responsibility for such situations should be particularly pronounced and participants in political life would have to express a strong departure from such practices, as well as the individuals who apply them.
"It is noticeable that the practices of discrediting journalists and the media are much more present in countries with a lower level of social and political development than in countries with a high level of democracy where pluralism of opinion and media freedom are nurtured," concludes Gazivoda.
Professional associations have a special role to record such pressures on journalists and to address them to relevant addresses.
The practice of the European Court of Human Rights shows that the state is not only obliged to refrain from interfering with journalists' freedom of expression, but also has an obligation to establish an effective system for their protection, but also to create a suitable social environment for raising issues of general concern. interest. Of course, this also applies to situations when what journalists want to publicly announce is in conflict with what the authorities or public opinion likes.
In the first six months of this year alone, the Media Union of Montenegro registered nine incidents and threats addressed to journalists and the media, five of which were by power holders, and four by those directly funded by citizens.
Journalists in Montenegro have so far faced various forms of attacks. From those with the most tragic outcome, such as the murder of the editor-in-chief Dan Duško Jovanović, through attempted murders and physical attacks, to threats and prevention of work.
What these cases have in common is that the attackers were usually from the "criminal milieu". On the other hand, laws.
The next level of attack featured the labeling of the media by high-ranking government officials. Like the situation when the former leader of the Democratic Fatherland of Socialists (DPS), Prime Minister at the time, Milo Đukanović, claimed that Vijesti promoted fascist ideas, because he did not like how they reported on him and his family.
The former prime minister, Dritan Abazović, often referred to ETV and Gradska TV as media that were financed by criminal clans.
In the case of journalist Ajković, Đeljošaj went a step further by trying to discredit him personally.
Dražen Đurašković from the Media Union of Montenegro says that the latest incident is only the tip of the iceberg of a problem that has been going on for years.
"It is inadmissible for a high-ranking government official to comment on media coverage, and even less to label a specific journalist as corrupt just for reporting on his case, without any evidence. Those in power must understand that with the privileges they take lightly comes responsibility, including responsibility for spoken words. Are they aware that by such public targeting of journalists, they are encouraging their supporters, some of whom may decide to "reeducate" the journalist? Unfortunately, this has already happened, says the Sinidkat media.
Our interlocutor states that if they are dissatisfied with the reporting of certain media or journalists, there are numerous legal and self-regulation mechanisms that they can turn to. There is no need for them to abuse their position and target journalists.
"Unfortunately, this trend is growing and has a negative impact on the public's attitude towards journalists, undermining trust in the media. The government should understand that it is not there to control the media and mold it to its own standards, because that is not a feature of democracy, but rather to support them. , whatever they are. If some media do not work professionally, there are mechanisms for that, and the audience, which knows how to recognize the difference, should not be underestimated," says Đurašković.
The Society of Professional Journalists (DPNCG) called on former public officials to refrain from, as they stated, attacks, harassment and preventing the work of journalists. They stated that politicians do not know that ethical journalism is a job of public importance, and that a small number of them he thinks about it.
"Neither does the Government contribute to such a climate, whose officials need to undergo serious training when it comes to freedom of expression," added the DPNCG.
The question arises, how could the state prevent such attacks on nano-journalists from happening again. Our interlocutors agree that defamation should not be returned to criminal legislation, because there is always the possibility of abuse.
International practice offers us a solution. Namely, in the Resolution from July 2023, the European Parliament recognized discrediting as a form of pressure on journalists, and the European Center for Press and Media Freedom (a non-profit organization) maps the violation of journalists' rights, between among other things, their discrediting. Although it would be expected from a country that aspires to be the next member of the EU, that this attitude of the European Parliament is recognized and respected, that is obviously not the situation at the moment.
That is why the implementation of this Resolution in the domestic legislation is a step to stand in the way of personal discrediting of journalists.
The text is part of the project "Effective Prevention and Protection of Journalists in Montenegro" implemented by the Association of Professional Journalists of Montenegro (DPNCG), the Association for Responsible and Sustainable Development (UZOR) and the Hanns Seidel Foundation with the financial support of the European Union and co-financing by the Ministry of Public Administration. The content of the text is the sole responsibility of the author and does not necessarily reflect the views of the European Union, the Ministry of Public Administration and partners.
Bonus video:
