Politicka Misla

The transition in Macedonia has its own trajectory. The relations between politics and media are going through dramatic changes. Without free media it is difficult to be genuinely committed to democratic values; however, the manner in which the media will use their freedom is equally important. Things change so fast that it becomes difficult to recognize the relations between politics and media, as well as to influence their further development. In my opinion, we can distinguish three stages in building these relations.

The first stage: the media created by the Communists are financially dependent on the governing party and serve as its propaganda service. Private media are rare and most of them are neutral when it comes to government criticism. Only a small number of media with limited readership editions criticize the government, bur are refused support by it and the commercial sector.

The second stage: there is a wave of establishing a great number of printed and electronic media. The struggle for financial survival in conditions of sharp competition is typical among them. The popularity of the medium should attract businesses to advertise. Each scandal is welcome and political affairs have the advantage in this regard. The relation between the parties and the media is going through a process of redefinition, and sensational journalism gains in importance. The former Communist media are not so dominant and the effect of the media on politics becomes more evident.

Third stage: the former Communist media, which dominated at the beginning of the transition period, are undergoing a severe crisis or are dying out. The private media are not so dependent on the government and act independently. The parties become aware that they are dependent on the media and that they should try to maintain good relations with them or to find new forms of imposing influence. The partnership in the media business and the parties, which should benefit both sides, is actually the major obstacle for the independence of the media space. The media, i.e., their owners, show political ambitions, political parties show media affinities through their business elite. A great number of media leave room for the freedom of informing, but also for the political and media abuses.

It is difficult to anticipate the future relations between politics and the media, but it is evident that politics, not only in Macedonia, needs the media and their support. As a significant factor in the development of a freer media space there are journalists who want to get rid of the pressure imposed by the owners of the media, as well as of political pressure. Media freedom, when compared to the transition period, is much greater today, but there are still many challenges, now related to the interest of the media owners, as well as to the needs of political parties.

Within a global framework, the relation between politics and the media should be observed through the so-called world media. This text does not analyze the extremist media who openly appeal to religious and racial hatred and violence, since they stand for an anachronistic and anti-civilizational perspective of the world. This analysis includes the international media in powerful countries which embrace liberal values.

The media represent the interests and the political concepts of the countries they derive from. With the value commitment they offer through the media, they impose their own national strategic interests to the rest of the countries in the world. The power of these world media is enormous. It is necessary for them, or the policies of specific countries, to pinpoint a certain issue in the world, to make it a global problem of which the whole world becomes aware and realizes that it should be dealt with. When the world media ignore the violation of human rights or other kinds of violence and abuse, such a behavior has a legal right to life. The truth is what exists, and what exists are the world media with their viewpoint on the truth, which becomes dominant in relation to any issue that concerns them.

The language in these media is, particularly in political crisis and military conflicts, which concern their countries as well, strictly applied to achieve a political aim. There is a new political jargon created, which makes it difficult to distinguish the victims from the violators. The Russian-Georgian military conflict is quite illustrative of the already established new political language. The phrases with which the Russian side justified the use of military force are meticulously emulated from the world media and the language used by the western countries to explain the military intervention during the Kosovo crisis. This does not mean that the motives and political goals of the two sides who resorted to military intervention are equal; I merely put an emphasis on the linguistic context which coincides in both cases.

In global frames, the media are the means of politics. Politics and the world media are creating and spreading the language that should secure their dominance in the global world. Jacques Derrida says: Power is just... and dominant is the power that will manage to impose, and, with it, legalize the terminology that suits it best. Today, the struggle for political dominance in the global world happens through the world media.

Goce Drtkovski