Czech Television reporter responds to criticism of his reporting from Brno on 1 May

Czech Television reporter Luboš Rosí has sent news server Romea.cz a statement regarding the criticism of Czech Television’s reporting on the events of 1 May 2011 in Brno. News server Romea.cz publishes his response to the open letter signed by dozens of public figures in full:

Nice day to you all,

Because the number of complaints from your side is growing, I consider it my obligation (and also the respectable thing to do) to respond to your suggestions publicly.

As I have written in individual responses to some of you: The purpose of the report was to try to correctly, impartially, and precisely capture what happened in the streets of Brno. This meant: Showing the massive police deployment and the risks posed by two events occurring simultaneously next to each other, describing the atmosphere and the controversial points of the actions, and also providing information about any eventual unrest and the number of those arrested (by the way: At the end of the report I literally said that “15 people were arrested, 13 of them right-wing radicals” – and I believe this makes it clear who primarily “committed” rioting in Brno).

Please, when evaluating my work, be aware that the report was not supposed to be a sensitive, emotional story about a strong uprising of civic forces, not was it supposed to be a celebration of what certainly was an admirable display of moral force and civic engagement – a report of that sort would certainly have been interesting, but in my opinion it would hardly have fit the framework of the news format. I can only imagine that an analytical piece about how people want to prevent neo-Nazism could have been produced for the needs of the regional news broadcast prior to the event – or perhaps in the days following it.

However, from the point of view of basic news values, it was necessary on the day of the march and blockade to really just report on what precisely took place where. That is why we reported the throwing of the smoke bombs (unfortunately, even though many of you will not agree with me, that act of rioting was the most visible thing to take place during the march), and that is why we reported the change of the route of the march, and that is why we drew on the map who was standing where on Sunday and what the police were doing their best to do.

If you reflect on the structure of the report in detail, all of these “pieces” are depicted and encapsulated there in a short form – the viewer first notes the most acute moment, the one that diverges most from everyday standards (NB: I know that the throwing of the smoke bomb was probably NOT done by someone from the BRNO BLOCKS initiative, but unfortunately, it did happen, and if we live in a country where it is not normal to throw smoke bombs at people, then it is completely clear that this offense must be recorded in the news – moreover the report REALLY WAS NOT ABOUT THE BB INITIATIVE, but was about all the groups that met up in the streets and about all of the aspects those interactions produced).

Next the viewer learns that shortly after noon, prior to the right-wing radicals’ march, there was a tense atmosphere accompanied by hate slogans (both chanted and written – both from the side of the right-wing extremists and from the side of, for example, the Roma people who were chanting, who at that moment were considered the other side. I did not argue about whether the slogans were hateful – there was enough footage from the arrival of the right-wing extremists and from the Roma people who were starting to gather on Cejl street to prove it).

If we continue to further analyze the structure, then another point is the critical evaluation of the fact that the organizers of a public rally were making it impossible for journalists to sufficiently freely capture the atmosphere and content of the speeches. The report also mentions that the police helped them by telling reporters with a camera to leave the scene. As the author of this report I am surprised that none of the opponents from the BB initiative noticed this strong moment and that it has not provoked other commentaries or protests. If we are going to try to do good journalistic work in the field, then the effort to record and capture as evidence any eventual illegal speeches by right-wing extremists should be a priority. If our efforts in a public space were being foiled not only by the organizers, but also by the police (!), then that is a significant intervention into the free operation of the media!

The report then proceeds to state that Tomáš Vandas is not respecting the court ban of the Workers’ Party. I sincerely do not understand how anyone can criticize the fact that Czech Television gave room to Vandas in the report – I would like to emphasize that particular part of the report refers to the “offense” which the participants of what was otherwise a permitted meeting were committing, both through their clothing and through Vandas’s statement (he literally says: “This is Workers’ Party No. 1 and No. 2 – and if No. 2 has to close, there will be a No. 3.”) which continues to espouse the banned party. I consider the criticism that Czech Television made some sort of biased space for Vandas to express himself to be unbelievably ridiculous. By the way, once again, it is important to note that irrespective of private opinions it is important to realize that we are talking about a properly announced and approved rally by the DSSS party, which was not banned – and within the framework of correctness, that is how journalists must perceive it.

I will briefly end my analysis of the reporting: In the next parts the route of the march is shown, including the changes that occurred to it -and then I go on to say that instead of an immediate clash with the crowd on Cejl street, the marchers were now supposed to not get to Cejl street until the end of the march. Please, in the text it is literally written that the right-wing radicals were to clash with the crowd – I presume no one who was peacefully demonstrating could deny that! As a private person I can admire the effort to peacefully demonstrate, but at the time of the march, there was the real risk of a clash, and that is why the riot police blocked the space between the two groups.

I understand it is possible that many of those who have complained did not want to get involved in a fight, but I am not sure what option they would have had if the police had not protected them and if the right-wing extremists had really headed toward Cejl street at the start. Would it then have been essential that the blockading people did not want to fight – when, as a Czech Television camera operator noted, it was mainly right-wing radicals (but not only they) who were repeatedly doing their best to get to the other group and fight?? That is also why the report states at the end that the police “pushed” the radicals back to the starting point and that both groups were separated. In other words, if those who were peacefully demonstrating are offended that the report stated that the groups wanted to fight, then I apologize to each and every one of them. However, as I have stated: From the police intervention and from the footage of both groups at the time that the march was coming to an end, the emotions and tensions at play are clear – and if the police had not intervened, I am convinced conflicts would have occurred despite the declared efforts at a nonviolent demonstration.

In conclusion, permit me to say that even though, as a private person, I might have sympathy for a civic initiative doing its best to prevent a march by right-wing radicals, such sympathies are unacceptable in balanced reporting – and that is the rule I followed when creating this report. I would like to point out that the purpose of the report was not and never should have been to report on the strength of the civic initiatives or about who was and who was not a member of those who were peacefully protesting but, as I have already stated, the point of immediate reporting from the scene was supposed to be to capture primarily the specific events on that day and to document facts as news. Last but not least – even though I do not have to agree with this – it was also necessary to take into account the fact that the assembly and subsequent march by the Workers’ Youth had been properly announced and approved by the relevant authorities and the fact that it was happening was in accordance with the law.

I am very sorry the report did not strike you as fair. I believe that what is playing a role here is the fact that whether you want to recognize it or not, you were standing on “one side of the barricades”. I am not demeaning your civic courage and initiative by pointing this out! I am just doing my best to show that you may be perceiving the final product under the impression of your personal sympathies and experiences directly from the scene. My role was to to conceive a report that would solely present balanced information about all aspects of that afternoon in Brno.