REM chief Smederevac: 19 complaints on Informer in one day
The head of the REM Council says about four people process complaints on 48 to 72 hour deadlines, and no proposed measure won a majority at the October 9 session.
Stevica Smederevac, president of the Council of the Regulatory Authority for Electronic Media (REM), told the FoNet agency on October 10 that the regulator has been buried in complaints during the election campaign, most of them against the Informer television channel. As an example, he said 19 complaints against the channel arrived in a single day. The day before, on October 9, the Council failed to approve any of the measures proposed against Informer, B92, TV Prva and K1.
We previously reported on the proceedings opened against six television channels over the treatment of minors. This is a new development: figures on the regulator’s workload and an explanation of why the session produced no decisions.
Who processes the complaints, and how much time do they have?
According to Smederevac, about four people analyze the complaints, and they have to prepare reports within 48 to 72 hours. As a result, he said, there is not enough time to compare similar cases from previous election cycles, international regulations and all the circumstances relevant to a decision. REM therefore pulls in staff from other departments, which puts additional strain on its regular monitoring of media content.
Smederevac said he supports the public’s right to report problematic content, whether it concerns public broadcasters, commercial channels or cable operators. He warned, however, that mass filing of complaints, combined with short deadlines and limited capacity, can lead to a kind of paralysis of the institution and make oversight meaningless.
“When that becomes a caricature of the process, then everything we do can be called a caricature of the conduct of REM and the REM Council. Yesterday was a caricature.”
With those words, Smederevac closed his statement to FoNet.
Why did no measure win a majority?
The session considered measures against four television channels. Smederevac explained that Council members could not agree: some proposed stricter measures, such as banning a channel’s programming for one to eight days, while others held that the Council should start with milder, corrective ones. By his account, the vote was held without the public present.
He cited Article 40 of the Law on Electronic Media, under which the Council weighs a broadcaster’s earlier conduct, any previous measures, cooperation with the regulator and its behavior after measures are imposed. A programming ban during a campaign, imposed as a first measure without considering all the circumstances, could, he warned, shut down the programming of channels with national coverage.
“Milder measures do not mean opposition to sanctioning, just as a proposal for a stricter measure does not in itself mean more consistent application of the law.”
That is how Smederevac described the relationship between milder and stricter sanction proposals.
What was said about Informer at the session?
The session discussed a complaint filed against Informer by the Bureau for Social Research (BIRODI). BIRODI director Zoran Gavrilovic said that Aleksandar Vucic was presented on the channel “like Coca-Cola in its own commercial,” meaning that he was portrayed positively in more than 90 percent of cases. He added that Serbian Progressive Party members are presented as analysts and that reporters voice personal opinions.
Informer owner Dragan Vucicevic said the report by REM’s expert service in this case was “full of hatred” and that its author directly discriminates against the channel. He also said there is no “verbal offense” in force in Serbia and that he does not forbid anyone from thinking differently than he does.
Smederevac announced that more complaints are expected in the coming days, which means the Council will again review the conduct of broadcasters.
