I do not respond to the questions of workers of “Informer”, only journalists

After the first announcement of a feuilleton series on the financing of KRIK, BIRN and CINS, which have been declared in a warrant as organisations with “wrongful intent”, foreign mercenaries who want to provoke chaos and overthrow the government, the director of the Centre for Investigative Journalism of Serbia refused to answer the questions of workers of “Informer”. Here’s why:

After the announcement of “Informer” that, as of Monday, it will publish a feuilleton series on the financing of BIRN, KRIK and CINS, where I am the director, with photographs of Slobodan Georgijev, Stevan Dojčinović and myself, I received two text messages from a worker at “informer”:

1. “Respected sir, I would like to request your comment on yesterday’s debate in Brussels – why do you consider the announcement in our publication as “a hunt chase and a warrant? Is it not legitimate journalism to write about how any organisation is funded? Including Informer and CINS, BIRN and KRIK? Thanks in advance.

2. Respected sir, can I expect a response – do you consider the announcement in Informer as a “chase hunt” against you and why?

It was the same “Informer” worker who had previously sent an SMS with questions, after BIRN’s article on the agreement for Etihad to takeover JAT. I had then explained to her that which I explain to young journalists and journalism students throughout the region, and around the world somewhat, though mostly in Serbia – whatever the practice in the local press – that interviews are not to be conducted via SMS messages, but rather live, except in special circumstances. I invited her to come to CINS to talk, open to all questions.

After a half-hour conversation in which I explained to her in detail how we are financed, how we have no money, how nobody is employed, how our expenditure is subject to very strict controls, how applications with donors function and how RTS receives money through those same application procedures quite regularly, she published only that which suited the thesis of her publication – that we are foreign mercenaries who receive huge financial resources from abroad in order to work against our own government.

I don’t know how to call that which you did to Saša Janković, Kolinda Grabar Kitarević, and even us, other than to dub it a “hunt chase”. I don’t see why I should expect anything else, but I certainly won’t be involved in that

Not a single fact and almost nothing of all the information I told Informer has been published. Next to my text was the worst photograph of me that the photographer managed to shoot, with some kind of micro-grimace, which I was not aware I could form. So, your colleague and her editorial team thoroughly ignored all basic professional standards and abused my cooperation.

The next thing “Informer” published about CINS was again from “sources close to the government”: CINS and BIRN rented a room next to the prime minister’s room at Lake Bor, where he wanted to spend his two-day holiday, thus causing the man to give up those two free days. In the headline we were dubbed “spies” and images of Slobo Georgijev and I again adorned the article.

This thing about the room we rented is, of course, a lie. And it would be really terrible for anyone to be able to find out in advance the number of the prime minister’s room and then rent the room next door without a problem. I’d worry about his safety. Perhaps I don’t agree with the man about many things, but I honestly want him to be safe and healthy, as well as his family. The idea that I’m interested in what the Prime Minister is doing with his family in privacy is disgusting, and although I understand why “Informer” thinks that is the legitimate work of the media, this does not mean it would not be a crime against decency, dignity, ethics and humanity.

CINS publishes very sensitive facts, but what’s important to a large number of citizens is that they are proven. Thus, we are not physically excited by the possibility of eavesdropping on someone’s bedroom, on the contrary.

Of course, this completely false accusation against BIRN and CINS was also an exceptional example of petty malice, the complete absence of any consideration towards the citizens of Serbia, who are lied to shamelessly, and the testimonies of the editors of “Informer” and journalists who accept to participate in that.

Their obligation is to verify all claims of sources, including those “close to the government”, and to ensure that those which are important – like the question of listening in to the Prime Minister in the privacy of a hotel room – are proven.

We prove all of our claims and, although we write about people who have all the money in the world for lawyers, so far we have, in spite of more than a hundred published investigative stories, had charges filed against us only twice – we won one case, while the other has just started, so I should not be prejudicial.

However, they can stoop even lower.

You are not a journalist. I cannot now deal with defining what you are, but you’re not a journalist. Journalists and reporters don’t do what you are doing.

Just a week later, again from “sources close to the government”, the Informer website published the news that CINS and BIRN meet every week with the head of the EU delegation to Serbia, Michael Davenport, and that we agree at these meetings how to topple “the government of Aleksandar Vučić”.

I met with Mr Davenport later. I told him it was time we met, given that we already see each other so often, and the man received that with a great sense of humour, but that article is not funny in the slightest.

The Government of Serbia, for instance, didn’t react to that article in any way. Does this mean that the government believes that the EU Delegation in Serbia wants to overthrow the legitimate authority in our country? Why then are we going into the EU? Why the police – actually not the police, the Security Intelligence Agency (BIA) – did not immediately arrest someone from CINS to investigate this obvious espionage activity with extremely destructive and dangerous intentions?

Because that’s all unbelievable stupidity, one potentially dangerous and very destructive lie. The citizens of Serbia have learned from “Informer” that the EU is toppling their government. If someone thinks that is naïve, something’s wrong with him.

Quite simply, it surprises me that someone was not invited to take a polygraph after that. And so soon there will be a polygraph machine in every office in Serbia, standing in a corner, like a photo-copier for many more naïve things than this.

The everyday production of “The Informer” is much more terrible than what we and BIRN experienced, and as of recently KRIK. Ombudsman Saša Janković experienced the publishing of police and court documents relating to the suicide of his friend, all except those few who suggest a terrible personal tragedy that in no way concerns citizens. The grief of the family of the unfortunate man who died was in the absence not of professional ethics, but rather ordinary humanity. All of this was used without any thought of what makes a trusted ombudsman’s office, one of the few that actually does its job in this country, and its significance.

Just to mention the alleged porn with the president of neighbouring Croatia, which we will depend on to join the EU. That was not Kolinda Grabar Kitarević. And that was not important in any way for the citizens. In what way is it helpful to call the president of a neighbouring country a “pornstar” and “ustasha facist”? Apart from the fact, as I say, that it was not true. But “Informer” still published photos from that porn film and claimed it was her.

Why do I mention all of this? Because I want to respond to the worker of “Informer” (and not the colleague): No, you cannot expect an answer to your question. You cannot, because:

1. You are not a journalist. I cannot take time now to define what you are, but you are not a journalist. Journalists and reporters do not do what you do.

2. Your journal is not a media source. I cannot deal with defining that now either.

3. When I graciously received you and spoke with you, you abused that in an undignified manner.

4. You could not read anywhere that I consider the announcement of your feuilleton series of articles neither a “hunt chase” nor an “arrest warrant”, yet you still treated that as a fact in the question. I will not even explain what that testifies to.

5. Yes, this is a legitimate news item, but you are not journalists.

6. Although the topic is legitimate, I see no criterion for the selection of this theme:

a. Have you ever managed to bring into question even a single fact published by the organisations whose funding you are dealing with, in order for that to be a good reason? You have not, and good luck in that job – to support our claims we publish official documents as evidence, our interlocutors are not anonymous and are competent for the issues we talk to them about, we have at least three sources with the same claim, and when it comes to fact-checking we are maniacs. The context for our assertions is sizable, more than enough. You have only one “government source” who lies all the time, and we’ve never met him/her, or you have “picked” facts, rather than publishing everything relevant. In order to refute our evidence you will also need evidence. Good luck with that.

b. We are not interested in parties. We investigate corruption, criminal activities and contacts, and other blunders by those who handle the money of citizens. When we did this to the Democratic Party, one other newspaper that was supported by the current Prime Minister shamelessly stole and published such sensations on the front page, even though the stories were a year and a half old. We were extremely popular at SNS; we received numerous “indecent proposals” from that side, as well as from other political options. We refused them all, as well as any attempt to exert pressure on us. I say, we do not care about politics; we follow dirty money and are sorry for whoever finds themselves in this story. We did not force them to do prohibited or immoral things. There are no more important political options in Serbia that did not find a place in our articles.

c. We are not financed with citizens’ money.

d. RTS and many others receive money from the same sources from which we are financed. If it is not a problem for you that the “public service” is financed from abroad, what is the problem with us?

e. If we violated any law, every government would have arrested us long ago. You have yet to claim that.

f. Journalists of CINS receive authors’ fees that are, according to my information, less than a starting salary at “informer”. And I won’t even mention the difference between the salaries of editors and managers. With us the difference is 20%. Nobody is formally employed because we have no money for that – not even myself, as director, nor the chief editor. Nobody. Where those millions are that we are playing with, I really do not know.

g. Now you tell me, why is our funding an issue? On the basis of what criteria?

7. I did not notice that you are “reporting” on many more important issues for citizens than this, but rather you only propagated the government and the prime minister, while you have completely ignored the truly important themes, or supportively protected the government, which is not the role of the media; the media do not represent governments and prime ministers, but rather citizens, precisely in order to expose the abuse of power. This is not something you do, ever.

8. I don’t know how to call that which you did to Saša Janković, Kolinda Grabar Kitarević, and even us, other than to dub it a “hunt chase”. I don’t see why I should expect anything else, but I certainly won’t be involved in that; it would stupid on my part to again believe in your intentions.

9. Absolute objectivity is something abandoned in media theory long ago, and this term has been replaced by absolute attempt to achieve objectivity. Not only do I not see such an attempt in the work of “Informer”, rather I can see complete alignment with the interests of one group of people gathered around Prime Minister Vučić. Practically, the absolute attempt to feign objectivity in the aim of unequivocal propaganda. Thus you see, in the end I did try to define something.

10. You have not signed any of the articles for which you posed questions for me. Nobody signed them as author. Who am I actually supposed to answer?

If it is still not clear to you why I will not answer your questions, I’m sorry. Do not call me to explain to you. I will be kind enough not to write your name here, although I should. You are of legal age and should be aware of what you’re participating in. However, I do not see any benefit to the citizens of this country from that revelation, while it could cause some harm to you.

I do not wish you success in your business.

Branko Čečen, director at CINS