FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

The ability to make a freely informed choice in elections depends on the ability freely to express ideas and receive and impart information, including through the media. Yet reports from international observers on the 1995 parliamentary and 1997 presidential elections make clear that the media in Croatia was not free from state interference during the election period, to the detriment of the democratic process.29 This is particularly true in television, themedium under the greatest influence of the state. This view is echoed in various reports issued by the Council of Europe Monitoring Committee and the OSCE Mission to Croatia, and was the subject of an October 1998 "non-paper" by the OSCE, Council of Europe, E.U. and U.S. governments that provided recommendations on the reform of the media in Croatia. The issue of media freedom in Croatia was also critically examined by the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media, Freimut Duve in a report issued in March 1999.30

Television is by far the most influential medium in Croatia. It is also the medium under the greatest control of the state. At present Croatia has three national channels, all of which are under the state broadcaster, Croatia Radio Television (HRT, Hrvatska Radiotelevizija). The half-hour news broadcast shown at 7:30 p.m. (generally referred to as Dnevnik, the news), which is shown simultaneously on HRT1 and HRT 2, is by far the prime news source for most Croatians. Estimates vary, but at least 50 and perhaps as much as 70 percent of the adult population of Croatia watches the Dnevnik daily. By contrast, daily newspapers are too expensive for many Croatians. In his March 1999 report, the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media was unequivocal in his assessment of the Dnevnik:

Government or ruling party officials are still granted virtually unlimited access to the [19.30 news] bulletin. Far from questioning these officials, the journalists either make no comment or endorse the official's arguments and assessments. Opposition politicians are rarely given an opportunity to comment directly on the official's arguments and assessments. Information and views which reflect poorly on the Government or ruling party are often distorted or omitted.31

This assessment can also be seen in the media monitoring reports produced by the OSCE Mission to Croatia and the U.S. embassy in Zagreb.32 Despite recent reports of modest improvements in the balance of coverage, during the week of October 5 to 11, the government and ruling party combined received more than 1,000 seconds of coverage on the Dnevnik, while none of the opposition parties received more than one hundred seconds.33 Given the parliamentary regulation from November 1999 granting equal time to all parties on state television, it is notable that the government of Croatia received the bulk of the coverage rather than the HDZ, which received around twice the coverage of any other party that week but still less than 200 seconds. The analysis reflects "sound bites" rather than screen appearances, since statements by opposition politicians are generally summarized by the reporter, whereas government and ruling party officials are generally allowed to be heard in their own voices. In terms of total time, the government received almost 1,500 seconds of positive coverage and 2,500 seconds of balanced coverage, whereas none of the opposition parties received more than 600 seconds of balanced coverage, and most received no positive coverage at all.34

Analysis of all programming across the three HRT channels indicates that the imbalance of coverage is not confined to the evening news. According to OSCE media monitoring for October 5 to 11, the government received more than 4,000 seconds of positive coverage and nearly 6,000 seconds of balanced coverage, with less than one hundred seconds of negative coverage. In addition, the HDZ received almost 4,000 seconds of balanced coverage.35 By contrast, none of the main opposition parties received more than 2,000 seconds of balanced coverage. When one examines opportunities for politicians to speak directly (so-called "sound-bites") rather than simple coverage, the situation is even more skewed. The government received more than 2,000 seconds and the HDZ more than 400 seconds across all programs, while the opposition party with the most coverage, the Peasant's Party, received aroundhalf that of HDZ. Cumulative analysis from May 1 to October 25, 1999 from the U.S. embassy indicates that the government and HDZ received more than 1,800 minutes of positive or balanced reporting, while the main six opposition parties received slightly more than 500 minutes of balanced reporting and no positive reporting during the same period.36

The ruling party's control over HRT is a significant factor in Croatian politics. Although there is a growing perception among domestic and international observers that its importance is overstated, television undoubtedly plays an important role in shaping the opinions of ordinary Croatians, as it does in other countries. While the frequently heard argument that the HRT was the critical factor in ensuring the re-election of President Tudjman in 1997 is probably an exaggeration, the unwillingness of the ruling party to relax its grip on the state broadcaster can only be explained in political terms. Albert Kapovic, who manages programs at the Croatian Journalists' Association, suggested that HRT's editorial content is designed to "create the notion that it is impossible to change ...[in order] to foster abstention and apathy."37 Given the current level of support for the opposition, apathy and abstention among voters would probably be to the benefit of the HDZ. Yet the degree of support for the opposition indicates the limits of HRT's influence. One analyst noted to Human Rights Watch that "support for the opposition is very strong despite the media and the omnipresence of HDZ on television."38 Its importance may be somewhat overstated by international observers and the Croatian opposition parties but HRT remains an important tool of influence for the ruling party.

Efforts towards reforming television in Croatia follow two tracks. The first is an attempt to reform HRT itself. The appointment in 1998 of Ivan Vrkic, then a respected member of the national committee on reconciliation, was greeted as a positive development by international and domestic observers alike. But Vrkic's efforts at reforming HRT have had little effect, according to Croatian journalists, mainly because the editor-in-chief and the governing HRT Council remain under strict HDZ control. Nor has international pressure produced noticeable results, despite Croatian commitments as a member of the Council of Europe to reform HRT, and similar recommendations by the OSCE and the Council of Europe on numerous occasions.

Revisions in October 1998 to the law on telecommunications, which regulates HRT, did not reflect Council of Europe and OSCE recommendations to convert HRT into a public service broadcast service. Nor did HRT follow the recommendations of the Council of Europe, OSCE, and many Croatian journalists to privatize its third channel, HRT3, as a means of diversifying content on national television. Rather than privatize HRT3, the amendments to the law licensed the creation of a fourth private national channel which most observers do not regard as financially viable given the limited advertising revenue already shared among the three HRT channels.39 On a positive note, the amount of advertising time allowed on HRT was reduced by the amendment from 15 percent to a maximum of 10 percent. Expectations about the possibility of reform under an opposition government are low. Damir Matkovic, the president of Forum 21, the association of television journalists in favor of reform of HRT, described the state broadcaster as "the last remaining fortress of the HDZ." Others have noted that the culture of HRT, where journalists see themselves as civil servants, will be difficult to change.

Another track of reform is to create a national alternative to HRT. As noted above, the October amendment to the HRT law granted the right for a new license to be issued to a fourth national channel, rather than privatizing HRT3 as the international community and Croatian journalists had suggested. Concerns about the financial viability of a fourth national channel limited the number of consortia interested in bidding for the license, and the license was eventually granted in July 1999 to Nova television, a consortium closely linked to Ivan Pasalic, President Tudjman'smost influential adviser.40 Immediately after being granted the license, Nova made it clear that it was interested in broadcasting on HRT3's frequencies rather than investing in the estimated millions of dollars of infrastructure required to create a fourth national broadcaster. Although the Nova television consortium includes Europa Press Holdings, publisher of Jutarnji List, Croatia's most independent national daily newspaper, the strong links between Nova and Pasalic raise doubt about Nova's commitment to produce independent news and current affairs programming.

A more modest, but possibly more significant opportunity to create an alternative television network was offered by the October 1998 amendment to the Law on Telecommunications. Under the amended law, local television stations may network and share programming with one another. The International Research and Exchanges Board (IREX), a U.S. government-funded organization, is currently developing an initiative that would allow independent local television stations in Croatia to network using fiber-optic technology. The network, which would cover between 60 and 70 percent of Croatia, would include independently produced news broadcasts from Zagreb. International agencies and most journalists seem encouraged by the initiative, although there is some concern at Forum 21 that the location of the news production facilities at Open Television (OTV) in Zagreb might compromise the editorial independence of the news broadcasts, because of OTV's frequent pro-government stances.

Croatia has several local radio stations that produce serious news content, but lacks a national independent radio station with a news focus. At the local level, Zagreb is well served by Radio 101, which, although a commercial station, takes a public service approach to its news content and offers balanced content, including call-in programs. Outside Zagreb, independent radio stations frequently face commercial difficulties due to limited advertising revenue, and some have come under political pressure from HDZ-controlled local authorities. Among the few national radio stations outside Croatian Radio (a network of state radio stations operated by HRT), only Otvoreni Radio (which covers most of Croatia) can be considered to have any real news content, although this is limited. The lack of an independent national radio station with extensive news content can be largely explained by the fact that broadcast licenses are granted by the HDZ-controlled Telecommunications Council, although the limited potential of advertising revenues in some regions of Croatia is also a factor.

The situation in the print media is considerably more positive than in television or radio. Croatia has several independent daily newspapers that are frequently critical of the government and ruling party (including the relatively new Jutarnji List) as well as pro-government dailies, and three critical and independent news weeklies that offer news and analysis. Nevertheless, independent journalists and newspapers face official and semi-official pressure through the use of criminal libel laws that allow judges to grant excessive damages and through slow or no payments by the near bankrupt state-owned distributor Tisak. In addition, few Croatians can afford to buy a daily newspaper, leaving the audience for their critical analysis limited primarily to urban audiences in Zagreb and other cities, although the news weeklies do have a wider readership.

Two news weeklies in particular, the Split-based satirical newspaper Feral Tribune, and the Zagreb-based Nacional, have come under significant political, legal, and financial pressure. Feral Tribune combines somewhat bawdy satire with serious investigative journalism and a willingness to examine uncomfortable aspects of Croatian society, including war-time abuses and corruption, while Nacional consistently breaks stories connecting members of the government and ruling party to scandal, and offers a pro-democracy liberal perspective with a sensationalist streak. Croatia's criminal libel law offers special protection for the five highest officials in the Croatian state and protects public figures against statements that cause "mental anguish" even if the statements are factually correct. Although the OSCE Mission to Croatia's spokesperson indicated to Human Rights Watch that a large number of libel cases brought against newspapers are ultimately thrown out of court, he noted that it was not clear if there has beenany improvement in the last year.41 What is clear is the damaging financial consequences of existing rulings against independent newspapers in Croatia.

The sum of the damages owed by Feral Tribune as a result of libel cases is estimated by the paper at 4 million Deutsche Marks (approximately U.S.$ 2.22 million), with between one hundred and 150 cases still pending. A senior correspondent for the paper, Marinko Culic, indicated that "in some cases, courts have reduced damages and thrown out cases, but we're not sure if it's a trend."42 Since its founding in 1995, Nacional and its editor-in-chief Ivan Pukanic, have been the subject of frequent libel charges. The paper and its editor currently face 107 pending libel cases. According to Pukanic, the paper was threatened with closure earlier in the year after the paper failed to pay 70,000 Deutsche Marks in libel damages.43 A new libel fund at the Croatian Journalists' Association launched on October 18 should help the situation, but the fund only covers legal fees, which are often relatively small compared to the size of damages awarded. Official statistics indicate that more than 700 libel suits were filed between 1994 and 1997, almost exclusively against independent newspapers and journalists.44

Even more serious are the financial problems faced by independent newspapers caused by the near collapse of Tisak, the main print distributor in Croatia. As small businesses, independent newspapers have been particularly affected by the lost or delayed revenue. Nacional's editor-in-chief Ivan Pukanic says that Tisak currently owes the newspaper 3 million Croatian Kuna (approximately $430,000). Feral Tribune is owed 2 million Croatian Kuna (approximately $286,000) by Tisak and is facing bankruptcy since it finds itself unable to pay its debts. The near monopoly on distribution enjoyed by Tisak leaves independent papers little choice but to continue to use them as their distributors, despite the payment delays.

In addition to financial and legal pressure, some independent journalists have also faced threats and intimidation. Ivan Pukanic, the editor of Nacional, had his office and apartment searched by anti-terrorist police after Nacional published allegations in June that the secret police had been involved in fixing the finals of the national soccer championships and had wiretapped the telephones of sports officials and journalists.45 The home of Robert Bajrusi, a Nacional journalist who co-authored the article, was also searched. In July, Hvoje Appelt, a journalist for Jutarnji List, received death threats after reporting on torture and maltreatment of inmates in the Lepoglava prison.46 After criticizing hate speech on a television broadcast by Mladen Schwartz, the head of the New Croatian Party of Right, Natasa Kalbantic, a broadcaster and prominent member of Croatia's Jewish community, was named on a pamphlet that accused her, together with other members of the Croatian Jewish community and then-OSCE Ambassador to Croatia Tim Guldimann, of "destroying Croatia." The pamphlet, which was signed by Schwartz's party, called for the murder of Kalbantic and the others named on it.