The debate included broad conceptual issues, such as the role of non-profit media in society, but also concrete criteria that should be taken into consideration in the evaluation process. 

 

As pointed out by representatives of the Ministry of Culture in charge of this program, nonprofit media are not included in the battle for advertisers and market competition (as commercial media are), nor do they have to justify their program schedule in an attempt to target a broad audience population and serve the tastes of many - such as public service media. However, the problem remains funding in a way that would enable a sustainable production process. Thus, it was proposed that, instead of financing projects – the usual way to finance different civil society organizations in contemporary societies – overheads and salaries would be provided for nonprofit media. This was accepted as positive; however, in the public debate, some voices claimed that this severely changes the position and role of civil society associations since they basically become employees of the state for a limited period of time, which then potentially jeopardizes their ‘watchdog’ role in relation to the state and political power. 

 

The state viewed as oppressive is an argument that fits well into a post-socialist context in which state control is demonized while the withdrawal of the state and the invisible hand of the market are viewed as progressive and in accordance with democratic principles. In this context, the role of civil society organizations has grown, especially in areas such as health care, care for the elderly and education – traditionally in the domain of the welfare state. This process could be seen as dangerous, since expectations of civil society associations are high while the state is liberated from responsibility and at the same time criticized for its ineffectiveness, expensiveness and bureaucratic nature, which serves as an excuse for further budget cuts. It is constantly overlooked that state funding is actually public funding. While civil society associations are claimed to be the progressive forces in society, it is true that they constantly struggle with sustainability, insecure working conditions and a project-oriented logic, in which areas of relevance are mainly defined outside the field of civil society. These difficulties in the everyday practices of civil society associations limit their scope and range of action. 

 

 

A third line of debate aimed at the influence media have in society – what is their reach, to what extent is it quoted in other media, what is the impact…? In this respect, the problem that emerges is: how can we measure social influence? How can we measure the role of media in self-organizing of citizens, their impact on public events, strategies of the government, etc. This is further complicated by the fact that different platforms needs to be approached differently - hits are applicable to online media, quotations are applicable only to online news media, radio stations – as an example – are much harder to access in this respect since they are accessible via online streaming as well – which complicates the matter further.  

 

Some suggestions were extracted from the debate and a final list of differentially pondered criteria was established: pluralist representation of social actors (12); pluralism of topics (12); different approaches and angles to the subject matter (12); contribution to recognition of civic, political and social rights (12); fulfilling the ‘watchdog’ role in relation to the economic and political power (12); informative breadth of communication (8); contextual depth of communication (8); accuracy of information (12); differentiated journalist forms and genres (8); amount of own production (12); design and equipment (12); linguistic competence (8); reach, accessibility and influence (36); editorial democracy (8); and number of workers (8).