This one said, that one said… journalism!

With a master's degree from Cardiff University and 20 years of journalism experience in Kosovo and beyond, as well as texts translated from at least five foreign languages, I think I have the right to give an opinion on journalism. I hope the guardians of all journalists don't attack me!

In the 90s, a group of journalists, with bags slung over one arm, a dictaphone, notebooks and pencils, would walk the route Presidency – QIK – Punto, reporting who had said what. (For the younger generations, this walk would be translated as Tiffany – Museum of Independence – Neck.) These were the most respected journalists in the city, but their main job was to reorganize the words of the five main political figures of the time: Ibrahim Rugova, Fehmi Agani, Hydajet Hyseni, Adem Demaçi and Shkelzen Maliqi as an independent analyst.

Unfortunately, this approach to journalism continues to dominate today. One of the clearest examples of the waste of media resources is the way the work of the Assembly of Kosovo is covered. Media teams stand in the building, often on the balcony, reporting word for word who said what. Politicians, meanwhile, use this attention to inflame public opinion and push their personal agendas by looking for the guilty. For me, reporting the work of the Assembly as the main news is meaningless and counterproductive. By giving politicians space on the front pages of the media, we stimulate them to deal more with manipulating the public, with feeding their egos by watching the statement reported in the media, than with solving real problems.

The media once boycotted reporting from the Kosovo Assembly. This work does not require courage – it only requires professional awareness that empty words are not news. The boycott was a positive step, but not enough. News from the Assembly should never be the first priority. We should focus on analyzing the consequences of the actions (or inactions) of the Assembly, not on the words spoken there – especially when every citizen can follow them live on television or the Internet.

Meanwhile, when nothing was happening in the Parliament and everything was being reported, an amateur camera recorded an adult kicking a child on the sports field, using racist language. This incident was shared on social networks until it finally reached the traditional media. And, again, what did the media do? Instead of investigating the phenomenon of racism in sports and the measures to combat it, they returned to their old habit – demanding statements from the deputies elected by minorities. It is good that they reacted, but the main question remained unanswered: what have you done so far to combat this phenomenon? Have you ever seriously addressed this problem?

The media, which are protected by law, and journalists who enjoy greater protection than other citizens from the police, must be held accountable for their work. We, the citizens, have enabled them to have this privileged status, and in return they owe us quality reporting and continued professionalism.

To conclude, I do not believe there is much hope that our journalism will quickly move away from the “this said, that said” approach towards more substantive journalism. It is easier to report the words of politicians than to do research on reality. Moreover, often the editors-in-chief become those political journalists who have turned this type of reporting into a lifelong profession.

On the other hand, citizens often trust politicians, opinion leaders or “influencers” more than traditional media. This new situation, not only in Kosovo, is creating a reality where trust no longer returns to the media, but is distributed across different sources – which can often be manipulative.

Therefore, with this approach and these standards, it is difficult to talk about restoring trust in the media. But, at least, we as citizens and professionals can open the debate and demand more: more substance, less empty words.