Raskrinkani pred javnošću: ustavno pravo na podnošenje tužbi radi zaštite ugleda i časti, kao i objavljivanje dokaza i dokumenata, sada proglašavaju „pravnim i online nasiljem“ – s namjerom da uspostave stanje u kojem (neki) BH novinari mogu bez odgovornosti javno izreći bilo kakvu neistinu, a svakoga ko objavi demanti ili zatraži sudsko utvrđivanje (ne)istine proglasiti neprijateljem slobode medija
SUD JAVNOSTI – PROTIV ZLOUPOTREBA NOVINARSTVA
KOMENTAR UREDNIKA
Autor: Danijel Senkić, novinar i glavni i odgovorni urednik portala Dokumentovano.ba
BH NOVINARI “PREBROJALI VIŠE OD STOTINU“ TUĐIH OBJAVA, ALI JAVNOSTI NISU DOSTAVILI NIJEDAN DOKAZ DA SU PISALI ISTINU
Narod kaže: u strahu su velike oči.
Najnovije saopćenje Udruženja/udruge BH novinari pokazuje koliko im se velikim i opasnim mogu učiniti dokumenti, novinarska pitanja i tužbe kojima se od suda traži da utvrdi šta je istina, a šta kleveta.
BH Novinari: Ajanović zloupotrebljava zakone i javni prostor radi pritiska na slobodu izražavanja
Udruženje/udruga BH novinari tvrdi da su Mirnes Ajanović i portal Dokumentovano.ba u posljednja dva i po mjeseca objavili „više od stotinu tekstova, komentara i drugih huškačkih i manipulativnih sadržaja“.
Više od stotinu?
Neka ih objave.
Neka uz svaki navedu tačan naslov, datum, autora, konkretnu huškačku rečenicu i činjenicu za koju tvrde da je netačna.
Jer stotinu dokumenata, čak i da ih je toliko objavljeno, ne postaju nasilje samo zato što neko ne želi da javnost čita istinu i vidi dokaze.
Stotinu pitanja ne postaju huškanje samo zato što neko na njih nema odgovor.
A stotinu objavljenih činjenica ne postaju neistinite zato što ih je neko pre(ko)brojao i proglasio kampanjom.
RASKRINKANI U KLEVETNIČKOM DJELOVANJU, PA SADA BROJE OBJAVE
Udruženje BH novinari nije odgovorilo ni na najjednostavnija pitanja.
Koju je konkretnu prijetnju Mirnes Ajanović uputio bilo kojem novinaru?
Koga je zastrašivao?
Kojom radnjom je nekoga uznemiravao?
Koji je tekst portala Dokumentovano.ba neistinit?
Koja je rečenica huškačka?
Koji je dokaz izmanipulisan?
Umjesto odgovora, pokrenuta je nova kampanja protiv Mirnesa Ajanovića, i kao advokata i kao političara, dok nas i portal Dokumentovano.ba usput spominju kako bi stvorili privid nekakvog „osmišljenog političkog pritiska“.
Kada nema odgovora na dokumente, prebrojavaju se objave.
Kada nema demantija objavljenih činjenica, autor se proglašava neprijateljem novinara i slobode medija.
Kada nema dokaza za javno iznesene optužbe, tužba kojom se traži da ih pred sudom dokažu proglašava se SLAPP-om, pritiskom i nasiljem.
NOVINARI NEMAJU DOZVOLU ZA NEISTINU
Sloboda novinarstva ne znači pravo da se bilo ko kleveće.
Ne znači pravo da se bilo ko proglasi osobom koja vodi kampanju blaćenja, targetiranja, zastrašivanja i uznemiravanja novinara, a da se potom odbije navesti ijedna konkretna radnja kojom je to navodno učinjeno – osim ako damama i gospodi iz reda (nekih) novinara smeta ustavno pravo svakog građanina da podnese tužbu radi zaštite od klevete.
Novinar ima pravo istraživati, kritikovati i postavljati neprijatna pitanja.
Ali novinar, urednik i novinarsko udruženje imaju i odgovornost za svaku javno izgovorenu, napisanu ili prenesenu riječ, kao i obavezu da sami podnose argumentovanu kritiku, demanti i objavljivanje dokaza. Imaju obavezu prihvatiti i mogućnost da budu tuženi ukoliko iznose neistine – osim ako neki smatraju da trebaju biti iznad zakona.
Problem nastaje kada pojedinci pokušavaju uspostaviti pravilo samo za sebe, prema kojem novinar može objaviti bilo kakvu tvrdnju, a da se onaj ko je demantuje ili objavi dokaze da je izražavanje neistinito odmah predstavlja kao napadač na slobodu medija.
Ako objavi demanti – vrši pritisak.
Ako objavi dokumente i dokaze – targetira.
Ako podnese tužbu – zastrašuje.
Ako traži da sud utvrdi istinu – vrši nasilje, naročito ako online objavi da je tužba podnesena.
To više nije zaštita novinarstva.
To je pokušaj uspostavljanja novinarske protuzakonite nedodirljivosti.
ZAŠTITA NOVINARSTVA ILI ZAŠTITA POLITIČKOG DJELOVANJA VLASTI?
Medijski portal Dokumentovano.ba nije analizirao Anisu Mahmutović zato što je novinarka, niti djelovanje Udruženja BH novinari zato što okuplja novinare.
Analizirano je Anisino javno djelovanje u procesima koji imaju ozbiljne političke, obrazovne i budžetske posljedice za Tuzlanski kanton, posebno jer je bila angažovana kao novinar SDA, o čemu svjedoče desetine tekstova objavljenih na zvaničnim stranicama Gradskog odbora SDA Tuzla i Kantonalnog odbora SDA Tuzlanskog kantona.
Link:https://sdatuzla.ba/author/anisam/
Arhiva se proteže na više stranica:
https://sdatuzla.ba/author/anisam/page/2/
https://sdatuzla.ba/author/anisam/page/3/
https://sdatuzla.ba/author/anisam/page/4/
Ili Udruženje BH novinari i Anisa Mahmutović smatraju da navedeno nije istina?
Dobro. Ako je neistina, zašto nas ne tuže zbog objavljivanja neistine ili barem u bilo kojoj svojoj objavi navedu da je to neistina, posebno jer i portal Dokumentovano.ba i Mirnesa Ajanovića javno prozivaju zbog navoda da je Anisa Mahmutović saradnik SDA?
Sudu javnosti ostavljamo da zaključi šta je istina.
Dakle, nesporno je da je Dokumentovano.ba objavljivao dokumente i argumente koji, prema ocjeni redakcije, otvaraju pitanje da li je djelovanje Anise Mahmutović kao „univerzitetskog stručnjaka“ bilo isključivo u javnom interesu ili je objektivno odgovaralo interesima SDA i vlasti predvođene tom strankom u Vladi Tuzlanskog kantona.
Posebno su razmatrane odluke i aktivnosti koje bi, prema objavljenim procjenama, mogle imati posljedice za budžet Tuzlanskog kantona od najmanje 300 miliona KM, a moguće i znatno više – pa i do 700 miliona KM.
Kada se govori o stotinama miliona maraka javnog novca uloženog u projekt Kampusa, za koji je i sam premijer SDA Irfan Halilagić ukazao na problem nedostatka studenata – posao novinara nije da šuti.
Posao novinara jeste da objavi dokument i postavi pitanje: da li je sve to ispravno i postoji li tu „IMT“ – lični protivzakoniti interes bilo koga?
Udruženje BH novinari, umjesto da i samo provjeri objavljene navode i dokumente, institucionalno se uključilo u odbranu Anise Mahmutović i time se samo svrstalo na jednu stranu političkog i pravnog spora.
Sada se iz skandaloznog javnog svrstavanja Udruženja BH novinari – čime je u ime svojih članova stalo na stranu jednog političkog subjekta, odnosno vlasti SDA u Tuzlanskom kantonu – pokušavaju izvući tonjenjem u vlastito blato: proglašavanjem svakog odgovora „targetiranjem“, svakog dokumenta „manipulacijom“, a svake tužbe podnesene sudu „nasiljem“.
Neće moći.
Ne pritiscima na slobodu izražavanja.
Ne prijavama Centralnoj izbornoj komisiji.
Ne dopisima međunarodnim organizacijama.
NIKAKO!
DANIJEL SENKIĆ: NOVINAR SAM OD 1994. GODINE
Udruženje BH novinari posebno ističe moj angažman u Komisiji za zaštitu ljudskih prava Gradskog vijeća Tuzla, ali pritom neistinito navode da sam zamjenik predsjednika BOSS-a. Istina je da sam zamjenik predsjednika navedene Komisije.
Ništa od toga nije skriveno.
Ali prešućuju da se novinarstvom kontinuirano i svakodnevno bavim od 10. aprila 1994. godine, kada sam počeo raditi kao novinar Radio Soli u Tuzli – i da se novinarskim poslom bavim do danas, a bavit ću se i ubuduće.
Bio sam, između ostalog, i deset godina urednik portala Dosije.ba, koji je jedini portal upisan u Registar javnih medija u Bosni i Hercegovini.
Moj politički angažman, koji ne krijem – za razliku od neke „nezavisne“ novinarke SDA koja svoj politički angažman pokušava prikriti – ne briše više od tri decenije mog novinarskog rada.
Ne zabranjuje mi da analiziram dokumente.
Ne oduzima mi pravo da postavljam pitanja.
I ne pretvara novinarski tekst u izbornu kampanju.
Ako Udruženje BH novinari tvrdi da je bilo šta što je objavljeno neistinito – neka to dokaže.
SUD JAVNOSTI SE NASTAVLJA
Javnost sada sve jasnije prepoznaje obrazac zloupotrebe novinarstva od strane pojedinih novinara, koji su se sami demaskirali pred javnošću:
Najprije se, u interesu vlasti, objavi teška neistina protiv nekoga.
Kada javno prozvani objavi demanti, slijedi etiketa da vrši pritisak na novinare.
Ako se usudi suprotstaviti i pozvati na pravo da objavi demanti, pokreće se kampanja njegove diskreditacije.
Kada podnese tužbu sudu, tvrdi se da je tužilac neprijatelj slobode medija i da „blati“, „targetira“, „uznemirava“ te „zastrašuje i diskredituje medijske profesionalce“.
A kada odbije povući tužbu, proglašava se osobom koja nad novinarima vrši „pravno i online nasilje“.
Upravo zbog toga medijski portal Dokumentovano.ba nastavlja serijal:
SUD JAVNOSTI – PROTIV ZLOUPOTREBA NOVINARSTVA
Objavljivat ćemo dokumente.
Objavljivat ćemo sporne tvrdnje.
Objavljivat ćemo tužbe i odgovore na tužbe.
Udruženju BH novinari, Anisi Mahmutović i bilo kome drugom i dalje stoji otvoren poziv da dostave svoje činjenice, dokaze i odgovore. Bit će objavljeni integralno i bez izmjena.
Neka javnost sama vidi ko objavljuje dokumente i dokaze, a ko neistine.
Ko postavlja pitanja, a ko od njih panično bježi.
Ko traži da sud utvrdi istinu, a ko već samu mogućnost sudskog utvrđivanja istine paranoično proglašava nasiljem nad novinarima.
U strahu jesu velike oči.
Ali dokumenti portala Dokumentovano.ba ostaju iste veličine.
FEAR MAGNIFIES EVERYTHING: THE BH JOURNALISTS ASSOCIATION IS IN A PANIC OVER A COURT JUDGMENT THAT WILL DETERMINE WHO IS TELLING THE TRUTH – BH JOURNALISTS OR MIRNES AJANOVIĆ
Exposed before the public: they now describe the constitutional right to bring legal action to protect one’s reputation and honor, as well as the publication of evidence and documents, as “legal and online violence” – in an attempt to establish a system in which certain BH journalists may publicly spread any falsehood without accountability, while anyone who publishes a rebuttal or seeks a judicial determination of the truth is branded an enemy of press freedom
THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION – AGAINST THE ABUSE OF JOURNALISM
EDITOR’S COMMENTARY
By Danijel Senkić, journalist and Editor-in-Chief of Dokumentovano.ba
BH JOURNALISTS “COUNTED MORE THAN A HUNDRED” POSTS PUBLISHED BY OTHERS, YET PROVIDED THE PUBLIC WITH NOT A SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE THAT WHAT THEY HAD WRITTEN WAS TRUE
As the saying goes, fear magnifies everything.
The latest statement issued by the BH Journalists Association shows just how large and dangerous documents, journalistic questions and lawsuits may appear to those who are being asked to allow a court to determine what is true and what constitutes defamation.
BH Novinari: Ajanović zloupotrebljava zakone i javni prostor radi pritiska na slobodu izražavanja
The BH Journalists Association claims that, over the past two and a half months, Mirnes Ajanović and the Dokumentovano.ba portal have published “more than one hundred articles, comments and other pieces of inflammatory and manipulative content.”
More than a hundred?
Let them publish them.
For each one, let them provide the exact headline, date, author, the specific inflammatory sentence and the fact they claim is false.
Because one hundred documents—even if that many were published—do not become violence simply because someone does not want the public to read the truth and see the evidence.
One hundred questions do not become incitement simply because someone has no answers to them.
And one hundred published facts do not become false merely because someone has (mis)counted them and declared them a campaign.
EXPOSED FOR DEFAMATORY CONDUCT—NOW THEY ARE COUNTING POSTS
The BH Journalists Association has failed to answer even the simplest questions.
What specific threat did Mirnes Ajanović make against any journalist?
Whom did he intimidate?
By what action did he harass anyone?
Which article published by Dokumentovano.ba is false?
Which sentence is inflammatory?
Which piece of evidence was manipulated?
Instead of providing answers, a new campaign has been launched against Mirnes Ajanović, both as an attorney and as a politician, while the Dokumentovano.ba portal and those of us working for it are mentioned almost in passing in an attempt to create the appearance of some alleged “coordinated political pressure.”
When there are no answers to the documents, they count the posts.
When there is no rebuttal of the published facts, the author is declared an enemy of journalists and press freedom.
When there is no evidence supporting publicly made accusations, a lawsuit seeking to have those accusations proven before a court is branded a SLAPP suit, pressure and violence.
JOURNALISTS DO NOT HAVE A LICENCE TO SPREAD FALSEHOODS
Freedom of the press does not mean the right to defame anyone.
It does not mean the right to portray someone as leading a campaign of smears, targeting, intimidation and harassment against journalists, and then refuse to identify a single specific act by which such conduct was allegedly committed—unless the ladies and gentlemen among (certain) journalists are troubled by every citizen’s constitutional right to bring a lawsuit seeking protection from defamation.
A journalist has the right to investigate, criticise and ask uncomfortable questions.
But journalists, editors and journalists’ associations are also responsible for every word publicly spoken, written or republished. They must themselves be prepared to face reasoned criticism, rebuttals and the publication of evidence. They must also accept the possibility of being sued when they spread falsehoods—unless some of them believe they should be above the law.
The problem arises when individuals attempt to create a special rule for themselves, under which a journalist may publish any allegation whatsoever, while anyone who rebuts it or publishes evidence showing that the statement is false is immediately portrayed as an attacker on press freedom.
If someone publishes a rebuttal—they are exerting pressure.
If someone publishes documents and evidence—they are targeting journalists.
If someone files a lawsuit—they are intimidating journalists.
If someone asks a court to establish the truth—they are committing violence, particularly if they announce online that the lawsuit has been filed.
This is no longer the protection of journalism.
It is an attempt to establish unlawful immunity and untouchability for journalists.
PROTECTING JOURNALISM—or PROTECTING THE POLITICAL ACTIVITIES OF THOSE IN POWER?
The Dokumentovano.ba media portal did not scrutinise Anisa Mahmutović because she is a journalist, nor did it scrutinise the activities of the BH Journalists Association merely because it represents journalists.
What was scrutinised was Anisa Mahmutović’s public involvement in processes with serious political, educational and budgetary consequences for Tuzla Canton—particularly because she had been engaged as an SDA journalist, as evidenced by dozens of articles published on the official websites of the SDA Tuzla City Board and the SDA Tuzla Canton Board.
Link:https://sdatuzla.ba/author/anisam/
Arhiva se proteže na više stranica:
https://sdatuzla.ba/author/anisam/page/2/
https://sdatuzla.ba/author/anisam/page/3/
https://sdatuzla.ba/author/anisam/page/4/
Or do the BH Journalists Association and Anisa Mahmutović consider the above to be untrue?
Very well. If it is untrue, why have they not sued us for publishing false information—or at least stated in any of their public posts that it is false—particularly since they publicly criticise both Dokumentovano.ba and Mirnes Ajanović for stating that Anisa Mahmutović is an SDA associate?
We leave it to the Court of Public Opinion to determine what is true.
What is therefore indisputable is that Dokumentovano.ba published documents and arguments which, in the editorial board’s assessment, raise the question of whether Anisa Mahmutović’s activities as a “university expert” were undertaken exclusively in the public interest or whether they objectively served the interests of the SDA and the government led by that party in Tuzla Canton.
Particular attention was given to decisions and activities which, according to the published estimates, could have consequences for the Tuzla Canton budget amounting to at least BAM 300 million, and possibly substantially more—even as much as BAM 700 million.
When hundreds of millions of marks in public funds are being invested in the Campus project—a project for which SDA Prime Minister Irfan Halilagić himself has pointed to the problem of a lack of students—a journalist’s job is not to remain silent.
A journalist’s job is to publish the document and ask the question: Is all of this proper, and is there any “IMT” involved—any personal unlawful interest on anyone’s part?
Instead of independently verifying the published allegations and documents, the BH Journalists Association institutionally joined the defence of Anisa Mahmutović, thereby placing itself on one side of a political and legal dispute.
The BH Journalists Association is now attempting to escape the scandalous public position it took—whereby, in the name of its members, it sided with a single political actor, namely the SDA-led government in Tuzla Canton—by sinking deeper into its own mire: branding every response as “targeting,” every document as “manipulation,” and every lawsuit filed before a court as “violence.”
It will not succeed.
Not through pressure on freedom of expression.
Not through complaints to the Central Election Commission.
Not through letters to international organisations.
UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES!
DANIJEL SENKIĆ: I HAVE BEEN A JOURNALIST SINCE 1994
The BH Journalists Association places particular emphasis on my involvement in the Human Rights Protection Commission of the Tuzla City Council, while falsely stating that I am the Deputy President of BOSS. The truth is that I am the Deputy Chair of that Commission.
None of this has ever been concealed.
What they fail to mention, however, is that I have worked continuously and on a daily basis as a journalist since 10 April 1994, when I began working as a journalist at Radio Soli in Tuzla—and that I have remained in journalism to this day and will continue to do so in the future.
Among other things, I also served for ten years as editor of the Dosije.ba portal, the only portal entered in the Register of Public Media in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
My political involvement, which I do not conceal—unlike a certain “independent” SDA journalist who attempts to conceal her own political involvement—does not erase more than three decades of my journalistic work.
It does not prohibit me from analysing documents.
It does not deprive me of the right to ask questions.
And it does not turn a journalistic article into an election campaign.
If the BH Journalists Association claims that anything published was false—let it prove it.
THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION CONTINUES
The public is now increasingly recognising a pattern in which certain journalists abuse journalism and, in doing so, have exposed themselves before the public:
First, a serious falsehood is published against someone in the interests of those in power.
When the person publicly accused issues a rebuttal, they are immediately accused of exerting pressure on journalists.
If that person dares to respond and invoke the right to publish a rebuttal, a campaign is launched to discredit them.
When they file a lawsuit before a court, they are portrayed as an enemy of press freedom who “smears,” “targets,” “harasses,” and “intimidates and discredits media professionals.”
And when they refuse to withdraw the lawsuit, they are declared to be someone who commits “legal and online violence” against journalists.
It is precisely for this reason that the Dokumentovano.ba media portal is continuing its series:
THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION – AGAINST THE ABUSE OF JOURNALISM
We will publish documents.
We will publish the disputed statements.
We will publish the lawsuits and the responses to those lawsuits.
The BH Journalists Association, Anisa Mahmutović and anyone else remain openly invited to submit their facts, evidence and responses. They will be published in full and without alteration.
Let the public see for itself who publishes documents and evidence—and who publishes falsehoods.
Who asks questions—and who flees from them in panic.
Who asks a court to establish the truth—and who paranoically brands even the possibility of a judicial determination of the truth as violence against journalists.
Fear may magnify everything.
But the documents published by Dokumentovano.ba remain exactly the same size.