Diary of a Shift: FTV Gets an Editor Tailored to Measure and Friendship of the Authorities - and the 'Protectors' of Media Freedom Play Dead!

By: Rasim Belko

In a country where even the air on public services is under party concession, the news that Amina Demić was removed from the position of editor and anchor of FTV's daily news, and Admir Pripoljac was installed in her place – is not news. It's routine. Like the morning ritual of hypocrisy. The media, those that dared, announced that everything happened with the "help" of friendly connections with Kenan Uzunović, a representative in the FBiH Parliament, better known as the "golden token of the current government" and the voice that saves governments, supervisory boards, and the occasional undeserved CV.

So, "selfless political support" has received its natural continuation: "selfless personnel reward". Who needs competitions, resumes, and journalistic references when we have recommendations from cafes and political brotherhood & unity? If anyone accidentally asked what the institutionalized version of "eh, I know a guy, he's good, give him a chance" looks like, you are looking at it right now.

And where are all those European guardians of media freedom, domestic fighters against political control of the media and self-censorship, and constant tweeters worried about the "media climate in the Balkans" now? Where are the statements, protest letters, European delegations, and panel discussions on the "dangers of political influence on public media" now? They are nowhere to be found. Presumably because this is a case where "our man" comes to "our place", so it is then, get this – normalization, not degradation.

It is interesting how some cases of attacks on media freedom are immediately recognized as a serious threat to democracy, while others – like this one at FTV – simply do not qualify as worthy of attention. The closure of Al Jazeera Balkans, a media event with regional implications, caused a storm of reactions – from domestic associations, foreign officials, international media organizations to loud advocates of freedom of expression. However, when a public service – which should be a guarantor of pluralism and professional standards – falls prey to political staffing, everything becomes a matter of "internal relations" and "personal reallocations".

Particularly striking in this case is the lack of reaction from the so-called civil sector, the same one that is often the most diligent when it comes to pointing out a problem, writing a sharp statement, or organizing a panel discussion with a title like: "Media Under Siege".

Obviously, when it comes to private media that deviate from dominant narratives or are not in line with the projects of financiers, then an urgent alarm is quite justified. But when a public service – an institution that should be the sanctuary of every democratic society – is turned into an extended arm of the ruling structures, the silence becomes astonishing. Or, more accurately, indicative.

Are not non-governmental organizations the ones that should react first to attempts at political control over citizens' information? Is not their basic task the protection of public interest, institutional transparency, and media freedom? Or is that mission also activated selectively – depending on the political moment, donor mood, or the nature of the "problematic media"?

Because if media freedom is a value, then it is worth it always and everywhere – not just when it fits the narrative about regressive forces to be dealt with for the purpose of applying for the next EU fund.

In the meantime, at FTV, we are witnessing a familiar scenario. Editors and anchors are not chosen based on professional references, but on political acceptability. The daily news is not edited based on the news, but on current coalition needs. The public is no longer a user, but a passive subscriber to a service that, with such a policy, will increasingly resemble not a media outlet, but an internal bulletin of a government.

What remains after such moves is not only the damaged credibility of a public media outlet, but also a message to all journalists: that professionalism is not an advantage, but a potential threat – and that loyalty to party centers of power brings more than years of experience and ethics.

Soon, we will watch FTV, which no longer informs, but persuades. It does not serve citizens, but masters their delusions. And the saddest thing of all – everyone knows it, but most are silent. Some out of benefit, some out of fear. And some because they are waiting for their dismissal – to be an appointment.