Media Integrity Report on the Role of Editors

 

The role and position of editors in media outlets seem to be neglected topics in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BIH). Editors are expected to hold the pivotal role in media integrity protection, but in practice editors in Bosnia and Herzegovina mainly keep a low-profile and rarely get either major public recognition or critique. The general circumstances in the media sector are inevitably taking their toll on the role and position of editors. Political parallelism has never decreased. The media are often part of networks of conflicting relations and financially dependent on a few sources of revenue, while profit is often the only guiding principle of media operations. All of this inevitably determines the policies behind the appointment of media editors, the circumstances under which they work and ultimately the role they perform.

 

This research report aims at outlining the position and the role of media editors in BIH. It is based on a research study conducted from March to May 2016, involving review of secondary sources, five in-depth interviews and a small-scale survey,¹ all aiming to outline the patterns of labour status, professional credentials, socio-economic position, political background and appointments of editors. The sections below are organised around these main issues. 

 

Before going into the current situation of editors, one should first recall the recent history. It is worth mentioning that appointments of media editors based on ideological criteria date back to Bosnia and Herzegovina being part of ex-Yugoslavia, when editors would strictly follow the course set by the Communist Party. It took one major corruption affair in which major party officials were involved(the one concerning the Agrokomerc company, which occurred in August-September 1987) to finally shake the political system in such a way that it became fragmented along particular lines of interest, which subsequently fragmented and in a way loosened the grip over the media.² In the course of these developments, government influence over the appointment of editors was weakened, so that, “for the first time the newsrooms chose the editors alone, among several candidates,” said Boro Kontić, long-standing media professional and the current director of MediaCenter Sarajevo, adding: “Among others, this is how I became editor of Second programme of Radio Sarajevo in 1990.” However, these changes were clearly not an indicator of systemic liberalisation and media freedoms, but rather of a weakened state. The interference in media still continued through party officials and intelligence services, but between the various interest groups within the party, the media could now grab the opportunities for gaining some freedom.³ By 1991 the popularity of nationalistic parties had already strengthened, and they made strong demands to appoint party-appropriate editors. While this was stopped at the time,⁴ it was in December 1992 – the first year of the war (1992-1995)– that the then-editors of RTV Bosnia and Herzegovina were dismissed and then began the “era of direct influence,” as Kontić named it. Since then, the actors and circumstances have changed; the media professionals that once held distinguished positions are for the most part no longer active, and the ownership patterns have been transformed from state media to public and private media. However, the ambitions and mechanisms of control persisted and continued to determine the role and the position of editors at media outlets. As this report will indicate, the role and position of editors have been degraded in many ways. 

 

 

There are no general media laws that specifically address the position and role of media editors and are relevant for all sectors and types of media. However, regulation pertaining to public broadcasters involves references to the political independence of the editors-in-chief.⁵ More specifically, both Rule 77/2015 on Provision of Audio-visual Media Services, and rule 76/2015 on Provision of Radio Media Services, under Article 31, stipulate that the editor-in-chief cannot be a person acting as a public official or a member of any body of political party, list of independent candidates, coalitions or organisations established by a political subject. The same article stipulates the obligation of the editor to submit a statement to the Communications Regulatory Agency (CRA) confirming that the abovementioned requirement is fulfilled. Private media outlets across various sectors (print, broadcasting or online) do not have similar stipulations concerning the independence of editors.

 

The responsibility of the editors towards the public is only implied in the general professional norms for broadcasting, but in the press and online media sectors the role of editors is explicitly addressed in the requirements to ensure truthful reporting, fairness and honesty, and to avoid plagiarism and falsifications, as well as bribes or favours that could influence their work (Code for Press and Online Media, Article 2).⁶ Ljiljana Zurovac, director of the Press Council in BIH (PC) reports that the majority of editors today respond positively to the work of the PC in the efforts to implement professional norms.⁷ An overview of the complaints processed by the PC illustrates that editors hold a central role in the mediation process: during 2015, 16 complaints were settled after retractions by editors. On the other hand, breaches of Article 2 were found in 11 cases out of an overall 173 complaints in 2015.⁸

 

The public service system in BIH – Radio and Television of Bosnia and Herzegovina (BHRT), Radio and Television of the Federation of BIH (RTVFBIH) and Radio and Television of the Republic of Srpska (RTRS) – has additionally adopted the internal editorial principles. They mostly restate the general principles of journalism, such as accuracy or fair reporting, and involve general requirements that programming should not be influenced for any conflict of interest. However, the editorial principles do not specify the responsibilities of editors nor do they define what specifically constitutes conflict of interest.⁹ Other media rarely adopt similar norms.¹⁰ An exception is, for example, the Center for Investigative Reporting (CIN). The editor-in-chief, Aladin Abdagić, notes that CIN internal regulations oblige them to publish corrections of false quotations, but the editor decides whether a reaction to a story involving additional details about the story will be published or not.¹¹

 

The media laws and regulations do not involve specific guarantees of editorial independence. Thus, the procedures for appointing editors are far from being independent, while funding is often directly dependent on particular actors that the media should be reporting about. This is particularly straightforward in the case of local public broadcasters – 12 local public TV broadcasters and 61 local public radio broadcasters (out of 43 TV and 139 radio stations overall) are directly funded by municipal and cantonal governments. There are virtually no assurances that the directors and editors of these media are not chosen based on political loyalty, and no assurances of continuous funding in case of critical reporting about the government. 

 

Similarly, editors are hardly in a position to engage in media reporting that goes against the interest of the owners. One participant in this study, the editor of a private media outlet, admits experiencing direct pressure and believes it to be aubiquitous practice: “Any editor who says he has not encountered such a thing is lying! More specifically, certain political structures were pressuring me through the owner to publish their 'greetings and wishes' …Have I done it? Mostly no, but mostly! Some 'yes' slipped in too.” Or in the words of another respondent: “It was funny to me sometimes when public figures would make suggestions to me while I was at Oslobođenje [a private daily] along this line: 'You will show your independence when you write an article critical of the owner'. It reflects a somewhat different notion of reality. Of course, in case of certain criminal cases, fascism or other similar cases, one should go against the will of the owner, but the owners word is still the ultimate one in profiling the editorial policy that you follow or mould, or you try to resist and go directly against it and you do not last long.”¹² One respondent in particular mentions that lack of transparency concerning the ownership and financing of media outlets further aggravates the problem, by keeping the possible influences on editorial policies out of the public sight.¹³

 

Some media, however, regulate editorial independence at the level of internal organisation with relative success, and provide some guarantees through better protection of editors from arbitrary decisions by the media owners. In the course of this research, television N1 was mentioned as a positive exception in this regard. As the N1 former news director Zoran Stevanović wrote, “I haven’t been in a position that someone tried to influence me in the sense of making or changing editorial decisions, for two reasons: the first and the major one is that the owner of the media outlet insisted on and supported editorial autonomy and the decisions that were made (although he did not agree with them on a few occasions), and the second one is that the contract did clearly protect editorial autonomy[…]The Editorial Board was the only body in which editorial decisions were questioned.”¹⁴ In contrast, an editor at a public service broadcaster reports: “There is no clear and efficient protection in cases where editors disagree with the management of the media outlet for which I work.”¹⁵

 

Finally, media financed by international donors are mentioned by respondents for their perceived greater independence from the local power-holders, which should be primarily under public scrutiny. However, this dependence on donor support is perceived as another source of insecurity for editors in terms of their livelihood. Željka Mihaljević, editor at a local radio station in Livno,¹⁶ indicates that it is especially hard for media outside of the big towns to access revenue from international sources, and that in circumstances of decreased donor presence, only long-standing integrity helps in assuring their support. 

The independent procedures and sound professional criteria for the appointments of editors are often missing at media outlets in BIH. 

 

The independent procedures and sound professional criteria for the appointments of editors are often missing at media outlets in BIH. There is an overall atmosphere of secrecy in the procedures of both appointments and demotions of editors. The job positions and criteria are rarely publicly announced, and more often the editors are appointed inclosed procedures, with only the final decision being communicated to the public (if anything at all). 

 

In private media the owners/directors have absolute discretionary powers to appoint and dismiss editors. The decisions are considered to be guided by the personal preferences of directors,who are not necessarily familiar with the journalistic profession, by financial rationales and, finally, on criteria of loyalty and conformism with the interests of the owners and their affiliates. The arbitrary nature of such decisions is illustrated by the words of our respondent: “The criteria and procedures for the appointment of editors are not clearly and adequately specified. More precisely, the only relevant criterion in choosing the editor is the decision of the owner…“ who added: “I was appointed literally in this way – the director called me to his office and told me 'From 1 October you are taking over the position of editor; if you don't like it, you can go home'. It's the job I was making my living from, so of course I have accepted.”¹⁷

 

At public service broadcasters, the Director General is also entitled to appoint the editors (as specified in the statutes of BHRT, RTVFBIH and RTRS). Despite the stipulations that should prevent conflicts of interest and political bias on the part of editors,¹⁸ it is a common practice that in public media outlets (including three PSB and 73 local public TV and radio broadcasters), the editors are in fact appointed based on their loyalty to the ruling political party at the administrative level in question.¹⁹

 

In private and public media alike, consultations with journalists are not a part of appointment and demotion procedures. Only one of the participants in this study, who worked for a media organisation registered as an NGO, mentioned that consultations with employees are a regular practice. Such consultations are mostly recognised by respondents as a necessary buffer from the arbitrary decisions of media managers and in general a step towards greater leverage of professional criteria in these procedures.  

 

The procedures for demotions and dismissals are equally non-transparent. The labour laws mention the general justifications for dismissals, but these are imprecise and allow inconsistent interpretations.²⁰ Labour rulebooks, if adopted in media organisations, further specify the reasons for dismissals or demotions, including violation of internal procedures, inflicting damage on the broadcaster in a financial sense, or in terms of its public image, in case of criminal behaviour etc., but also: “behaviour conflicting with the rules of programming and business policy and editorial guidelines of RTVFBIH, disrespect for the codex, recommendations and decisions of the Regulatory agency for communications of BiH and other international organizations”, as well as  “transmitting unchecked information in programs that results in disturbance of the public and harm to the public image and damage to the Public RTV System of BiH”  (Udovičić 2015, p. 14).²¹ However, as will be demonstrated in the examples below, the internal norms were not sufficient to prevent controversial demotions on several occasions.²²

 

 

Editors are employed mostly based on indefinite work contracts, while short-term contracts, or engagement on an occasional and task basis, are common in media organisations, but are mostly limited to journalists. Some exceptions are possible, with “some editors of even very influential media working without contracts,” says one survey respondent. Secondary sources suggest that the violation of labour rights in media outlets is most often related to salaries, working conditions, length of the working day and health and pension security payments.²³ One respondent in this study reported that he was denied several salary payments and that related health and pension contributions can go unpaid for months. 

 

Media outlets, as it is the case with any legal entity that employs a minimum of 15 persons (in RS) or 30 persons (in FBIH), are obliged to adopt a work rulebook that involves specification of work posts.²⁴ In some media outlets the internal document on the systematisation of work positions might also include further specification. These documents are more commonly adopted at public than at private media outlets.²⁵ While some of these documents might provide better definition of relations between the editors and the media outlets, the implementation mechanisms are weak, violations are not rare,²⁶ and ultimately these documents do not necessarily contribute to the legal security of editors. 

 

 

Štefica Galić and Amer Bahtijar, editors of the tacno.net website, were attacked in February 2015, by verbal insults and threats of physical violence.²⁷ Similar verbal insults and threats were addressed to Siniša Vukelić, editor of the capital.ba website, in October 2014;²⁸ but most distressingly, the death threats that he received two years earlier, in October 2012, from a controversial businessman Mile Radišić, were never resolved in court. 

 

Members of the media community have continually expressed dissatisfaction with judicial inefficiency in dealing with threats against and attacks on editors and journalists. Borka Rudić, secretary general of the Association of BH Journalists, stated that out of 65 cases of threats against and attacks on journalists registered between 2006 and 2015, only nine cases were resolved in the journalists’ favour.²⁹ Some of the most blatant cases have been dragged through the process for several years. It is worth noting that the Association of BH Journalists provides legal support to journalists and editors suffering pressure from within or outside of their media outlets. However, respondents in this study point to a general lack of solidarity, as well as fragmentation along ethnic and political lines, which together render the support of the professional and wider community partial and inconsistent.One of the rare examples of joint support, across entity and ethnic lines, happened in December 2014, as a protest against the police raid on the klix.ba website.³⁰ 

 

It is indicative that editors who participated in this research mention three types of processes in which they have been implicated: threats from outside the media outlet, coming from criminal circles (Berislav Jurič, editor of bljesak.info), pressures by political actors through management structures from within the media (editor-in-chief of a private media outlet), and finally involvement in complaints procedures (managed by CRA) and court libel cases (as mentioned by several editors).³¹ In the majority of these cases, the editors relied on support from within their media organisations in the case of lawsuits or external pressure. However, libel law does not distinguish the editors’ responsibilities from the responsibilities of the author or the publisher. While in most cases it happens that the media outlets bear the financial responsibilities during court cases,³² one editor participating in the study reported that publisher had not provided legal support on a few occasions and instead it was the editor who had to cover the expenses.³³ 

 

 

There are no separate professional associations of editors in Bosnia and Herzegovina, but some editors are members of the general organisations for journalist and trade unions. This includes, for example, the Association of BH Journalists, which counts around 700 members, of which “one third, if not more” are editors, as reported by the association’s secretary general Borka Rudić.³⁴ Rudić also points out that the editors are relatively active, participating in conferences and seminars and supporting actions on behalf of media freedom. However, “they are not particularly vocal when their media are concerned.”³⁵ Our search through the information on the websites of international organisations such as EFJ, IFJ, IPI, SEEMO, EBU and WAN-IFRA showed that there are no names of BH editors listed among the members of their boards or committees. However, some media outlets or associations do hold such memberships (for example,public RTV service of Bosnia and Herzegovina is a member of EBU;one owner of an advertising agency is a member of SEEMO, and the Union of Independent Newspaper Publishers is a member of WAN-IFRA). The Association of BH Journalists is a member of EFJ and IFJ, and as Rudić reports, of 700 members of the Association of BH Journalists, 120 are also members of IFJ.³⁶

 

Overall, despite the specific position of editors in media outlets, there are no particular initiatives in BIH aimed at advancing their status and role. 

The majority of editors have completed bachelor studies in journalism, law, economics or other fields, and worked for several years as journalists before becoming editors. However, in some private media outlets, editors have only high school diplomas.

 

There are huge variations in terms of the professional credentials of editors. The insights gained from this study indicate that the majority of editors have completed bachelor studies in journalism, law, economics or other fields, and worked for several years as journalists before becoming editors. However, in some private media outlets, editors have only high school diplomas. Not many editors did receive relevant awards for professional achievements, and multiple award winners are rare among them.³⁷

 

Typically, editors have at some time in their professional development participated in informal education programmes. Some of the training opportunities mentioned by our respondents includes training in investigative journalism (organised by Deutsche Welle), training in reporting on sexual abuse victims (organised by the US Embassy), and training courses organised by MediaCenter Sarajevo, SEEMO, Thomson Reuters, Press Council in BIH and USAID.³⁸ Participants in this study emphasised in particular that continuing education is a necessary precondition for optimal performance by editors. 

 

Foreign language proficiency is not indicated as either a particular asset or an obstacle in performing the role of editor, but our small survey indicates that the majority of editors have a good command of English, while some editors also have some command of one or two other languages.

 

The research results overall indicate that the media do not regularly place an emphasis on professional excellence when appointing editors. Most often the minimum requirements for solid performance are fulfilled, but political criteria and a cost-oriented personnel policy are often given preference. It is worth noting that biographies of editors are rarely available on the websites of media outlets,³⁹ suggesting that their professional background is not treated as a major asset in attracting an audience and promoting the public image of a particular media outlet. 

 

Some media, however, do have both the financial means and the professional standards that allow them to pursue candidates with top credentials. The regional broadcasters recently founded with foreign capital, mainly N1 and Al Jazeera, can afford such a policy. Many distinguished professionals from other media have transferred to these broadcasters on account of improved working conditions and better salaries.  

 

The monthly salary of some of the editors at private media outlets that responded to our survey is remarkably low, amounting to less than 500 euro. While in small media outlets it can be as low as the national average salary of 430 euro, it is considerably higher at the larger media outlets, in particular, at Al Jazeera Balkans and N1 (the latter providing a salary of more than 2,500 euro to the news director). The salary of the majority of editors falls somewhere in between, and among respondents in this study, it is mostly between 1,000 and 2,000 KM (i.e. 511- 1,035 euro).The information on editors’ salaries is treated as a business secret by CIN, for example, but also by the public service broadcaster BHRT.

 

While our respondents report that their salaries are paid regularly, some of them did indicate that the amounts are insufficient for the responsibilities and the work they are doing.One respondent reports that his rights to salary and health insurance are being blatantly violated: “In the 15 years that I have been in this line of work – seven as a journalist, eight as an editor – I have been denied at least that many salary payments, not to mention contributions,” wrote the editor-in-chief of a private media outlet.⁴⁰

 

The editorial post is the only source of revenue for the majority of editors at media outlets, and based on our survey, the media seem to regularly prevent other similar engagements by their editors. The internal document of Radio Free Europe, Conflict of Interest Policy, can serve as a positive example, since it specifies the criteria on which to judge and possibly prevent any journalistic, political or other business engagement of its employees that might constitute conflict of interest.⁴¹

 

There are no major controversies concerning other engagements by media editors, and doubts about conflicting relationships are mostly limited to a few examples of connected ownership of media outlets and advertising agencies/media production houses. The fact that in some media the director is simultaneously the editor is in itself seen as a further derogation of editorial independence. For instance, in nine out of 43 local television stations the position of both editor and director are held by the same person.⁴²

 

It is not usual for editors to be publicly declared members of political parties or organisations related to political parties, or for them to openly support the political agenda of a given party, but some of them are considered to be affiliated with particular parties and even appointed to their posts based on those affiliations. Concerns about political affiliations are particularly expressed in relation to public media outlets. A notable illustration of this general pattern was the case of Bakir Hadžiomerović, previously the editor of the political magazine “60 Minutes” at the public broadcaster RTV FBIH, who has been suspected of favouritism towards the Social Democratic Party (SDP) for years.⁴³ The fact that later, in the course of the general elections of 2014, he was nominated for a member of the BH Presidency as an SDP candidate, was interpreted as a barefaced confirmation of his long-standing alliance with the party. This, however, is only the least covert illustration of what is believed to be a general pattern. The public service broadcaster RTRS is most consistently mentioned for its political affiliations with SNSD, and editors are considered part of this political conformism. An article about a journalist who recently resigned from RTRS involved his general claims about the political pressure under which “journalists, wilfully or not, become political workers,”⁴⁴ nevertheless, as is usually the case, no information about particular pressures was given. 

 

We will present three patterns that illustrate the position and role of editors: the questionable appointments and demotions of editors at public media outlets, indicating political interference; the silent appointments and dismissals at private media outlets, indicating absolute discretion on the part of owners; and financial troubles accompanying editorial policies critical of major centres of power.

 

The public service broadcasters constitute a case in their own right. In recent years RTVFBIH,in particular, had several demotions of editors, the reasons for which remained largely vague,while their procedural legitimacy was also questioned. The most recent one was the demotion of the news editor of Federal Television Avdo Avdić, in September 2015, for reasons vaguely formulated by the management structures as a loss of confidence in his work and his relation with the management hierarchy. A variety of reasons were speculatively advanced, however, involving two major options: first, that it was a matter of internal disagreements and Avdić's disapproval of the managerial decision to cancel the political magazine “Mreža” (Network), and second, that he was in fact dismissed by some officials of the SDA party.⁴⁵ Similarly covert was the demotion from his editorial position of Bakir Hadžiomerović, in 2012,⁴⁶ allegedly as a result of growing influence by the SDA party in the fight between major political groups for greater power over this broadcaster.⁴⁷ Prior to that, the cancellation of the political magazine that he edited (“60 minutes”) was also believed to have had a political motive, some claiming that the SDP feared that,after coming to power,it would become a target for criticism by the magazine. Others claimed that it was the result of an agreement between the SDP and the SNSD, the leading political party in the Republic of Srpska which had often been the target of severe criticism within this program.⁴⁸ Whatever the reasons might be, in the case of Hadžiomerović, the procedures for dismissal were not observed, and following the court proceedings, FTV was ordered to reinstate him in his previous posts. In contrast, a similar court ruling in the case of Duška Jurišić was never realised, since her post was excluded from the internal job categorisation, thus setting a worrying precedent and contributing to the uncertainty of the position of editors. 

Appointments and dismissals at private media outlets happen in silence, and the reasons remain unclear.

 

RTVFBIH found itself in these controversies as a result of shifts in power-sharing at the level of the Federation of BIH, but the cases mentioned illustrate the position of editors in public media in general. The demotion of editors at the public service broadcaster RTRS and the public news agency SRNA from 2011 can also be interpreted in the light of particular political interests. A telling example is the appointment of Milica Džepina, who has been an editor of SRNA since 2011 and is considered to be affiliated with the ruling political party SNSD. Reportedly, she was functioning under a technical mandate, until she was officially appointed in January 2014, by then having fulfilled the necessary years of experience required for the post.⁴⁹ The appointment ignored the pleas that allegedly came from the employees of SRNA to stop the political interference and to appoint established media professionals to leading positions.⁵⁰ The clashes between leading persons in the SRNA and the heads of the political party SDS happened before,⁵¹ and the recent accusations tossed between SRNA and the Minister of Security of BIH, Dragan Mektić, unfolding in April 2016,⁵² can also be seen in the light of political confrontation between the two camps.⁵³

 

The practices concerning editors at private media outlets are much more clear-cut: “There is no drama there, only pure execution”, says Boro Kontić, MediaCenter Sarajevo. Appointments and dismissals at these media outlets happen in silence, and the reasons remain unclear. This was the case, for example, with Faruk Vele, who was abruptly dismissed from the position of editor at theklix.ba website in August 2014,⁵⁴ or with the recent change at Hayat TV when news director Aldin Arnautović stopped performing this role.⁵⁵ In similar cases, public insight into the position of editors is hindered, and the lack of transparency itself does not speak in favour of media integrity. 

 

The beginning of 2016 was marked by the termination of the print edition of one of the rare remaining political magazines in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Slobodna Bosna. The reasons were financial in nature, but in part connected with the critical stance of this media outlet. The editor-in-chief, Senad Avdić, is known for his uncompromisingly critical attitude towards power-holders, but also for unusually harsh language and writing style. In a recently published interview, Avdić noted that the financial pressures came from frequent lawsuits. 

 

“The rulings doomed Slobodna Bosna. In the last two or three years we paid 200 thousand BAM for the emotional distress of various people that sued us and mostly to politicians[…]Simply, we lost 50 percent of these lawsuits, which is a rope around a neck of a small firm like ours,” says Avdić. He also indicates that these financial troubles were aggravated bya decline of advertisers’interest in print media outlets in general and particularly in those that do not refrain from critical reporting.⁵⁶ 

Political interference and business reasoning are extremely influential in determining the position of media editors and their professional role in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The fate of the magazine Dani –which reportedly became close to the SBIH party before being sold in 2010 to Oslobođenje Ltd.⁵⁷ –illustrates how the interests of owners can easily both mould the ideological position and determine the transfer of ownership. While in the case of Dani this was facilitated by the fact that the same person held the positions of editor-in-chief and owner, in the case of Slobodna Bosna, several journalists and editors are the founders of Pres-Sing Ltd, which issues the magazine. Avdić argues that Slobodna Bosna will not share the same fate as Dani since “[…] the way it was ended was inappropriate and uncollegial, and I would rather commit suicide than end like that,” he concludes.⁵⁸ 

 

Political interference and business reasoning are extremely influential in determining the position of media editors and their professional role in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Major patterns of influence on appointments and editorial policies are based on the political and business affiliations of owners, as well as on the main sources of funding on which survival of the media outlets depends. Government is one of the major funding sources, major advertisers are largely controlled by political parties, and options for alternative funding are scarce. Funding by international donors is seen as the only oasis safe from severe pressure on editorial policies. 

 

Editors are already considered largely placated when the interests of the owners and related actors are at stake. It all starts with the appointment of editors who conform to particular business and political interests. Appointments in public media are highly politicised, and there have been no efforts to improve them. Norms on conflict of interest formally exist in the public media, as well as in some international and some local private media, but their spirit is consistently violated, although the wording might not be. Once the editors are appointed, there is a variety of patterns to guarantee that their editorial freedom is kept within the boundaries of the owners’/founders’ interests. Even on the formal level, the assurances of editorial independence are worryingly scarce. 

 

Labour laws and internal norms formally provide a sound status for editors, but in practice they do not protect editors from unwarranted demotion or pressures. One of our respondents admits sometimes compromising editorial decisions under pressure from the director of the media outlet. The reasons for editors not reporting such patterns more frequently presumably involves a combination of conformism, fear for their livelihood, perception that similar patterns would not be avoided in other media, but also a lack of trust in institutional support and solidarity by the professional community. All of that contribute to scepticism about the potential for positive resolution. Some previous court decisions about demotions, however, do provide some hope. The Association of BH Journalists provides legal help in such cases, but overall, the journalistic community is fragmented and rarely shows unified support, while professional organising specifically aimed at advancing the position of editors is non-existent. 

 

Some media outlets can afford to provide the kind of better working conditions that are way beyond the majority of media outlets. At the same time the safeguards from both conflict of interests and guarantees of editorial independence, although easily introducible, are also utterly neglected. 

 

Finally, professional integrity extends only as far as the media professionals do not touch interests of the owners and affiliates, therefore it is difficult to distinguish the line between editorial integrity and conformity. Nevertheless, all these factors – political interference, lack of transparency, lack of guarantees of editorial independence, economic vulnerability, and limited support for editors – contribute to a situation in which the profession is tarnished in the public eye. What a respondent says has become palpably true: “It is not a respected job.”⁵⁹

 

Judging by the lack of public debate about or advocacy for improvement of the position of editors in the media in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the professional community seems to have entirely given up on it.