Following a statement by the Justice and Peace Commission of the Croatian Conference of Bishops on defamation, dated May 20, 1994, a statement regarding the media censure of persons in public service, dated November 27, 1996, as well as statement on the relationship between the mass media and the truth, dated July 3, 2000, the Commission again deems it necessary to speak out on several aspects of media activity in the Republic of Croatia.

First of all, we note that today’s spirit of the times is marked, among other things, by a certain reductionism in which the market becomes the sole ethical norm, the generator of all “values,” the reality to which other things must be subordinated. Therefore, diagnoses of so-called “market fundamentalism” as a secular form of exclusivity and domination are becoming increasingly widespread. The consequences of this fundamentalism are evident in the current economic and social crisis, leaving in its wake desolation, fear and panic, which initially afflicts the weakest and most vulnerable.

Although it would be expected that the media in its truly important social role would comply with other norms besides those imposed by “market fundamentalism,” we are witnesses to how the interests of owners and advertisers in achieving the quickest and highest profits, under circumstances of increasingly fierce competition, have been placed, unfortunately, before the rights of the readers to receive comprehensive, truthful and precise information. The media, therefore, are increasingly becoming victims of corporate journalism and all the other aspects of their alliance with capitalism, as well as with politics. Confronted by this situation, the Justice and Peace Commission of the Croatian Conference of Bishops deems that its task and obligation is to foster “truthful and free communication which will help consolidate integral progress in the world” (John Paul II, Apostolic Letter, The Rapid Development, February 2005). Therefore, we point out certain phenomena regarding the media that seriously jeopardize the common good of the Croatian society.
1. The publicizing of evil. The first consequence of the subjugation of the media to the market as the sole criterion is the sorrowful phenomenon of “the publicizing of evil” (V. Tenžera). The publicizing of evil, as a form of pandering to the lowest human impulses, has always been and remains the easiest but also the most irresponsible manner of attracting the masses. In this sense, regarding headlines and the emphasis of the majority of the media in Croatia, it is immediately evident that crime and accident reports have become redundant columns because much of the space in the media has already actually been transformed into crime and accident reports. Moreover, it is not uncommon for entire newspapers and news programs to be entirely devoted to crime and accident reports. Meanwhile, since the methodology of the “publicizing of evil” is obviously not guided by the desire to unmask evil, it produces a counterproductive effect — evil receives even further impetus. Several tragic events and assassinations, which in recent months have profoundly shaken our society, clearly indicate this. For many media, the evil that already occurred was insufficient. Therefore, they increased it by imagining events and thus debased the victims, injuring their human dignity while at the same time violating their right to privacy, as well as the fundamental ethical and legal norms. Many insinuations later were shown to be lies, devoid of any discernment and even bordering on the pathological. Another problem concerns photographs of persons killed in traffic or on the street, thereby unscrupulously inflicting pain upon the victims’ families.
Despite positive achievements in the war on corruption, sensational reporting and the photographing of suspects implicitly proclaim that they are “guilty.” Therefore, regardless of innocence, many bear the burden of the insinuations published by the mass media. The publication of the names of suspects by authorized institutions, which, unfortunately, is frequently the case, seriously violates their human rights, especially the principle of “the presumption of innocence.” In reports and commentaries, the media not infrequently also assume the role of the judicial organs.
The methodology of the “publicizing of evil” is evident in the ignoring of disclaimers. In this manner, true statements that contradict false assertions spread by the media are marginalized. Thus, evil news receives extensive media coverage. However, when investigations conducted by the authorized institutions have demonstrated that accusations were false, the media, with honorable exceptions, have remained silent. The “publicizing of evil,” is also a threat to the psychological health of the entire society because it spreads and promotes the collective belief that nearly all the public services are corrupt and all successful people are suspicious scoundrels.

2. “Media racket.” Another cancerous lesion afflicting our media, which has already been pointed out on several occasions, is the problem of the so-called “media racket,” in which institutions or persons ask for money in exchange for “writing correctly” or remaining silent. Individual national representatives and mayors have gone public with contracts that they were offered by media representatives, in which the amounts are stipulated that they had to pay to “promote positive examples” about the work of the “users of such services.” Such “contracts” represent an additional stain upon the reputation of the “free media,” as well as upon the public officials who are forced to pay for their own media publicity with taxpayers’ money. In the alliance between politics and the media, with money as the common denominator, informing the public no longer becomes the highest purpose but a “collateral effect” of the interaction of three powers: capital, media and politics. Such manipulations lead to the demise of “public opinion.”
In all of this, pressured by publishers, media owners and capital, there is increasing suffering among the journalism profession and journalists in general, from whom “loyalty” to such methodology is required. Therefore, journalists, not infrequently against their will and/or under existential pressure, become “mercenaries of evil.” In this context, it is also necessary to mention the media in small milieus, under the ownership of the cities or counties and under the supervision of the local wielders of power, which serve the political oligarchies instead of informing the citizens and forming public opinion in general.

3. Censorship of the good. If market fundamentalism and money as its first basic criterion become the basis and impetus for “editorial policy,” then we are moving toward a time of the most dangerous form censorship, i.e. the censorship of the good. This concerns denying the public its right to information about the good or the marginalization of the good, whereby the society becomes transformed into an “extortion racket,” with everyone against everyone else. Therefore, the media and their owners, whose power as well as responsibility in society are enormous, must oppose “market fundamentalism” as well as its product, the “extortion racket” in the society and not participate in it themselves. “Market fundamentalism” obliviates the fundamental human values, censors the good, subordinating everything to the logic of money and profits to such an extent that not infrequently the dignity of the human being as well as the common good are forfeited. All these phenomena in many segments of the public and, indirectly, the private areas are acquiring troubling dimensions.

4. The Croatian language. One of these values is also language. To a great extent the media today are contributing not only to the impoverishment and decay of the standard Croatian language but also to its vulgarization. Therefore, vulgarity and violence in the language obtain rights of citizenship and “legitimacy.” The extent of this degradation is particularly evident in the electronic media, which are full of unjustified foreign words, for which the translations are frequently more vulgar than the originals.

5. The need is evident for a suitable legal framework and greater “publicizing of the good.” In various ways, it is necessary to promote the establishment of a legal framework for individuals and the society, which require value systems in order to function and develop, regarding the aforementioned negative phenomena and the apparent lack any boundaries whatsoever in the area of the media. At the same time, on various levels it is necessary to initiate and support initiatives that raise the awareness of individuals and society, in order for them to become more resistant to the aforementioned negative phenomena and more effective in liberating themselves from the self-censorship of the good and in promoting the values essential for general health, function and survival. In certain cases, this can result in a boycott of some of the media. Such a boycott can be even more effective if it is initiated by media personnel. Certainly, faith in the power of good can and ultimately must assure suitable publicity of the good,” i.e. a right of the public that is presently being denied by the practices of many of the mass media.

In Zagreb, March 5, 2009

Msgr. Vlado Košić, Ph.D.
President of the Justice and Peace Commission of the Croatian Conference of Bishops