Više medija ranije favorizovalo Tadića, nego danas Vučića

VAŠINGTON -RTV

U Srbiji je danas mnogo manje medija koji favorizuju premijera Aleksandra Vučića, nego onih koji su favorizovali Borisa Tadića kada je bio predsednik, iako Vučić uživa mnogo veću podršku građana, nego što je Tadić ikada imao, piše na svom blogu američki stručnjak za Balkan Danijel Server.

"Iako je Vučić danas daleko popularniji nego što je Tadić ikada bio dok je bio predsednik Srbije (a svakako drži veću moć nego što je imao Tadić), kad se uporedi broj i procenat mejnstrim medija koji su trenutno provučićevski, sa brojem onih koji su bili za Tadića dok je on bio na vlasti, uočićete da je začudo više medija tada favorizovalo Tadića, nego što danas favorizuju Vučića", piše na blogu.

U tekstu pod naslovom "Srbija: Mediji i vlada" Server napominje da je nedavno od dobro upoznatog prijatelja tražio da mu opiše situaciju sa medijima u Srbiji i navodi njegov odgovor.

Izbegavanje politički osetljivih tema, od strane dela medija, kao i napisi o postojanju državne cenzure, sa potpuno suprotnog kraja medijskog spektra, značajno su obeleženi istim uzrokom: borbom za opstanak, odnosno izvore finansiranja.

Štampani mediji, koji gube deo čitalaca u trci sa onlajn medijima, prinuđeni su da se sve više oslanjaju na oglašavanje kao na izvor prihoda, a da ne bi izgubili velike oglašivače, poput državnih kompanija ili velikih kompanija bliskih vlasti, izbegavaju politički osetljive teme.

Uveravaju sponzore da je medijska situacija katastrofalna

S druge strane, aktivisti koji navode da se zalažu za slobodu medija i alternativni mediji, poput blogova ili portala, zavisni su od međunarodnih izvora finansiranja, pa imaju potrebu da potencijalne sponzore uvere da je situacija u Srbiji o pitanju medijskih sloboda katastrofalna, kako bi oni, kao nezavisni mediji, mogli da dobiju kontinuiranu novčanu pomoć, navedeno je u tekstu.

Ocene da je Vučić navodno "užasan diktator" i da je situacija još gora nego u vreme Miloševića predstavljaju flagrantnu laž, navodi Server.

Navodi se i da je glavni problem novinara i nevladinih organizacija - koje tvrde da postoji cenzura u Srbiji, a koju sprovodi srpska vlada ili premijer Aleksandar Vučić - njihova argumentacija, to jest to što im je "krunski dokaz" ovih tvrdnji to što većina vodećih medija Vučića kritikuje retko ili nikada.

Konstatujući da je tačno da većina medija o Vučiću izveštava pozitivno, u tekstu se dalje navodi da to ne mora biti dokaz cenzure, već odraz opšteg stanja društva, navodi beogradski list.

"Ako Vučić uživa veliku podršku građana, nije iznenađujuće da će većina medija nerado pisati ili govoriti protiv njega", navodi se na Serverovom blogu.

Takođe, većina "običnih" ljudi malo je zainteresovana za problematiku cenzure i slobode medija, skeptični su prema medijima i nemaju visoko mišljenje o njima, u uverenju da ima mnogo dezinformacija, namerno plasiranih u političke ili druge, sebične svrhe.

u jebote 
valsto okaci nam onu sliku kad vucic iskace iz frizidera

Ova vest je lažna. Ovo jeste napisao Danijel Server, ali to nije on rekao, već su to reči nekog njegovog prijatelja koje je on preneo. Njegov stav po ovom pitanju je malo drugačiji.
Domaća goveda od novinara ili nisu razumeli tekst, ili su ga namerno preneli kako njima i njihovom gazdi odgovara.

http://dnevne-novine-slobodna-rec.blogspot.com/2015/02/obmana-daniel-server-nije-napisao-blog.html

Ма лаже...Вучић је највећи диктатор и тиранин од постанка света. Какав Хитлер, Пиноче и остале пичкематерине

U pravu si Nenade evo njegovog objašnjenja

Unprofessional and misleading
Posted in Daniel Serwer - February 28, 2015 - 1 Comment

I am grateful to readers of peacefare.net for pointing out that the Serbian media has published accounts of my post on Serbia: media and government | peacefare.net., clearly attributed to a “knowledgeable friend,” as my own view. This is unprofessional and misleading.

Worse: the Serbian press is suggesting that I said “Mediji nisu u službi premijera Vučića” (D. Serwer: the media is not in the service of Prime Minister Vucic). That attributes to me views that are not mine and is at best a distortion of my friend’s views. The author never said there is no censorship. The piece tries to explain how and why the media is pro-Vucic, not that it isn’t. The author gives several reasons: most people, including in the media, think the prime minister is doing the right things, and some people in the press are sychophantic towards the government because of opportunism or cowardice, including fear of losing government advertising. He also says media conditions are nowhere near as bad as they were under Milosevic.

You are entitled to wonder, what do I think? Do I agree with my friend?

One of the reasons I asked my friend’s opinion is the difficulty in forming my own. Beyond “kako ste” and “dobro dan,” I am not a Serbian speaker. I read the Serbian press mostly through Googletranslate and on B92’s English service, which is an eclectic mix that I find useful but not necessarily representative. My friend’s response was more nuanced and interesting than a lot of the commentary on press freedom in Serbia that I see in English-language media, so I thought it interesting enough to put in the public domain, even though it had to be published anonymously. It tried to explain the several mechanisms that make the press pro-government, rather than simply blaming ill-defined censorship. Whether I agreed or not was not an issue in deciding to publish it.

The Serbian press reaction and abuse of this blogpost is a true reflection of the state of the Serbian media, as one of my correspondents suggested today. It was unprofessional to attribute the views in the post to me personally. It is also inaccurate to suggest that the post exonerates the Serbian government.

As I see it, there is a tendency in Serbia, as in other transition countries, for the authorities to attack the messenger rather than respond to the message. This happens occasionally in mature democracies–President Obama a year or so ago was sharply critical of Fox News–but it is relatively rare. The press is doing its job in a democratic society when it reports unsavory facts or uncovers what it thinks is malfeasance. The right response 98% of the time is to the facts or the allegations, not to attack the media.

The situation is complicated in Serbia and elsewhere in the Balkans because some of the media more critical of the government and more willing to report what it regards as malfeasance is supported internationally. This can be unsettling to politicians, who are too often inclined to think the money is explicitly aimed at discrediting them. The “Sanader effect” (Ivo Sanader was a pro-EU prime minister of Croatia who has gone to prison for malfeasance) makes politicians in the Balkans particularly sensitive.

I can’t speak for the European Union, but I know that when US government money goes to support foreign media it is intended to support professional and accurate reporting, as well as a wide range of views. Even government-owned Voice of America aims for professionalism and accuracy. In my hundreds of interviews with VOA, RFE/RL and other government-supported outlets no one has ever tried to tell me what to say. Years ago I was present when Vice President George H.W. Bush, upset with something VOA had published about him, ordered a US embassy official to fire the correspondent. The diplomat had to tell the vice president that could not be done.

Of course this doesn’t mean that either I or the outlets that carry my interviews are 100% correct or in some absolute sense unbiased. I have colleagues who believe they are not asked to give interviews by VOA because their views diverge too much from those of the US government. There is no absolute purity in the media business. Influence is exercised in many different ways, not only in Serbia but also in the United States.

That said, there is a big gap between the relatively independent press in mature democracies and the kind of shabby and sycophantic coverage my blogpost on the Serbian government and media got this week. There will always be some media that toe government lines. But I like to hope that things will evolve in a more professional and mature direction. I’ll be amused to see if the Serbian press publishes an accurate account of this, my followup post.

And no, I don’t think things are worse today than under Milosevic. Nor do I think things were better in the Balkans in Tito’s time, as so many in the seven countries derived from Yugoslavia like to say. These invidious comparisons fail to give credit where it is due: things have improved and I hope will continue to improve, even if I am among those who would like improvement to come faster.