Suchergebnisse

The media are subjects of the legal order with duty to provide unbiased and
truthful public information. All media are subject to public interest, but
the content of public interest differs depending on the type of media. As a
result of rendering the democratic society and the rule of law meaningless
and inconsequential, there is abuse of freedom of public information. The
question is no longer how to ensure the independence of the media from
public authorities but how to ensure that the media serve the purposes of a
democratic society and bring enlightenment in the public sphere. On the
other hand, there is a challenge to preclude the arbitrariness of
independent public authorities in the process of monitoring the media
activities, which is a fatal disease in the state of law (Rechtsstaat). In
the field of public information in the Republic of Serbia, there is an
institutional imbalance between independent subjects of bodies in the field
of public information. Considering that an effective legal form of control
over the work of these independent public bodies has not been instituted
yet, the establishment of the Protector of Public Information (Ombudsman),
as a defender of media enlightenment, would be a positive step in the
direction of establishing an institutional balance. The Ombudsman for Public
Information (hereinafter: the PI Ombudsman) would be elected by the National
Assembly from among prominent media professionals, based on the proposal of
the journalists? association. The PI Ombudsman?s activities would entail
control of the activities of the Regulatory Body for Electronic Media (REM),
media and other public information entities. The PI Ombudsman would not have
the authority to impose legal sanctions but the exercised control of the
activities of public information entities would enable the Ombudsman to
issue warnings and recommendations to the Regulatory Body and the media, as
well as to file motions to the competent authorities on observed or
established irregularities, especially concerning the REM activities. Based
on the radiating effect that may be exerted by the reputation of this
independent public body, the actions of the Ombudsman for Public Information
would aim to remove the arbitrariness of the media and the Regulatory Body
for Electronic Media, as a necessary precondition for the development of an
enlightened public sphere based on polite and reasoned discussion.

The multifaceted content of public interest pertaining to some subjects of
the legal order has not been the subject matter of thorough theoretical
consideration in literature, which does not recognize the need to clearly
distinguish the concept of public interest from the concepts of general
interest and private interest in the legal order of a state governed by laws
(Rechtsstaat). There are substantial differences between public interest,
general interest and private interest. General interests are dynamic
expressions of the general (common) good. Private interests are dynamic
expressions of private legal goods of individual subjects of the legal
order. Public interest is a relational determinant in the legal order of a
state governed by laws. Thus, unlike general interests and private interests
as substantial categories, public interest has a relational character, as it
serves to regulate relations between legal interests as substantial
categories. In the order of a legal state (Rechtsstaat), public interest is
a regulatory determinant of various goods and interests, which is anchored
in-between general, special and private interests, public and private
sphere, publicity and privacy, the interventionism of public authorities and
the civil society, the institutional order of the public authority and the
institutional order of the territorial.