“Avaz’s” School of Journalism

After Avaz journalist Mirela Kukan addressed CA “Why Not?” (Avaz’s attempt to discredit ‘Raskrinkavanje’, 20/6/2019), this media outlet followed with a kind of feuilleton dedicated to our platform, which began with an article published on the 20th of June, 2019 in their print edition, and 21st of June 2019, in the online edition of Dnevni Avaz:

WE INVESTIGATE Who and how does quasi journalist expose: In whose service is the “grant star” Darko Brkan

Although the question from the title implies that Darko Brakn, that is “Raskrinkavanje”, works in “someone's service”, this thesis started right in the beginning is not elaborated further in the article - nor is it mentioned at all throughout the text. Instead, Avaz further states:

Self-proclaimed Regulator In journalist circles, the completely anonymous Brkan suddenly found himself in the role of a “regulator” and someone who tells respectable, referent media how to do their job. Meanwhile, Brkan is not a journalist, nor has he completed a school in which journalism is taught. That did not stop him from setting himself up as a factor in determining who and what kind of content will be published, to which he will determine relevance.”

Before posting this article, Avaz addressed CA “Why Not?”, which runs the Raskrinkavanje platform, with 10 questions, out of which one was “Do you have the ambition to get the role of a regulatory body such as the Press Council and similar media institutions in BiH?” In the response to Avaz’s journalist Mirela Kukan, we explain that the Press Council is not a regulatory, but a self-regulatory body and that no one on our platform has the ambition to turn it into any “body” for (self)regulation. Even so, this statement (quite unbelievable in itself, since the journalist herself does not explain how a fact-checking platform could be turned into a “regulatory body” or have such “ambitions”) appeared in the Avaz article explicitly in the subtitle, and implicitly in the quotes about “determining who and what kind of content will be published” (which, again, is unclear how would this even work). Finally, the same claim is repeated in the part where the creation of one - equally vague and unexplainable - “parallel system” appears:

Brkan denies also that he runs a “family business”, as well as that behind all of this is his ambition to create a parallel system with legal and legitimate media regulators

Avaz further makes inaccurate allegations of financial misuse of Raskrinkavanje, presenting it as a “cover” for personal enrichment. In addition, next to the description of a photo of Darko Brkan (“Good profit under the cloak of analysis and fight for media literacy”), Avaz makes the following statements:

That did not stop him from setting himself up as a factor in determining who and what kind of content will be published, to which he will determine relevance… And Brkan takes serious money for that. (...) This year alone from platform Raskrinkavanje, he raised $121,685, after he convinced national donors such as the “National Endowment for Democracy”, “Center for Civil Society Promotion (CPCD)” and the “Embassy of the United States” that his work on media literacy and fight against disinformation is “honest and committed”.

The same day, Avaz published another article on their online media outlet, entitled “Why is Darko Brkan nervous” in which the decision of Raskrinkavanje to integrally publish the answers to questions from Avaz, was presented as an expression of “fear”, “panic”, and “nervousness” over alleged uncovering of financial misconduct:

Why is Darko Brkan nervous Apparently, he was caught in the fear of losing generous donations in far South Africa Brkan: Why panic? (...) Given that there are many uncertainties about Brkan and his work, Avaz has yesterday, as professional media does, asked him for answers. However, our questions obviously caused panic and nervousness. Was it because someone, in this case, Avaz, decided to ask questions and uncover their work? Avaz was interested in who and how finances his quasi-association, how does Brkan spend that money, and whether the allegations that turned the whole job into a family business are correct.

The questions sent by Avaz’s journalists specifically related to the data on donations that fund Raskrinkavanje, which have been publicly available on our website from the beginning, and have been confirmed by donors whom Avaz also contacted before publishing the text. From our recipes, publicly available data, and the replies of our donor organization to Avaz, it is more than clear that the amount of financial assistance published on our website cannot be “collected” by any individual person. Platform Raskrinkavanje is not led by Darko Brkan, but by the CA “Why Not?” team, which is also listed on the webpage. The amount “121,685 claimed to be “collected” represents the annual budget of Raskrinkavanje, whose work is supported by donors that are clearly listed on our website, along with the amounts of financial support of each individual donor, and the spending structure of the platform. Avaz continues its claims of alleged misuse of donations, without any evidence, or cited sources, with allegations of vague “media reports” from the “Dosta” movement which was active in the period 2006-2011:

Ever since Brkan’s involvement in extinguished, but once also generously donor-supported movement “Dosta”, the media have problematized, among other things, the question of how someone who calls himself a human right activist “earns” several apartments. We asked Brkan that question yesterday, who is in South Africa and has thus answered us via email. -I live in my parents’ house in Ilidža and do not own any real estate. My net salary for the last month was BAM 1,141.50 - Brkan replied.

On the basis of the claims of Avaz on media coverage of the alleged purchase of apartments “from the time of “Dosta movement”, we sent Avaz’s editorial office a question about what media outlets have published such claims and when did that happen, and did Avaz verify any of the allegations made in stated media reports. We transfer Avaz’s answer in full: Dnevni Avaz, 26th of June, 2019. Among others, texts discussing Mr. Darko Brkan’s human rights activism and “several apartments” have been published in the media, among others, on links: https://kamenjar.com/kako-ngo-mafija-manipulira-bosnjacima/ and https://stav.ba/raskrinkani-darko-brkan/ The statement was verified in the 10 questions sent to you by Avaz journalists on 20th of June in an email at 3:40 pm, to which you answered at 6 o’clock, and the same evening, you posted questions and answers on your page even before Dnevni Avaz published them, proof - link: https://zastone.ba/avazov-pokusaj-diskreditacije-raskrinkavanja/ Among others, you have a question: “Are the media claims that Mr. Brkan has several apartments correct and can you tell us what your income is?” to which you replied and posted, while we published answers in a Dnevni Avaz article on 21st of June, and published the article on our online media outlet Avaz.ba The question of the sources of Avaz’s claim, has, however, remained unanswered, since both links sent by the editorial office of this online media, lead to the texts published years after the “Dosta” movement ceased to exist. The links provided to our inquiry by Avaz’s editorial office lead to the article “Unmasked Darko Brkan”, published on the online media outlet “Stav” on the 19th of December, 2017, and signed by the pseudonym “Mustafa Drnišlić”; and the other article “How does NGO mafia manipulate Bosniaks” published on the Kamenjar online media outlet on the 30th of September, 2018, where the online media outlet “Hrsvijet” was cited as the source. The text published by “Mustafa Drnišlić”, apart from the fact that it was not published in the time when “Dosta” movement was active, does not in any way talk about “earning apartment”, and thus it is unclear why it was cited as the source of these claims made by Avaz’s editorial office. On the other hand, the text transmitted from Hrsvijet, which without any sources or evidence, states the claim about “several apartments”, was originally published on one of two anonymous media outlets (“Vrisak” and “Grude”) on which it appeared a couple of hours before it was posted on the Hrsvijet page. Avaz has, thus, based its “research” on unidentified anonymous “sources” which they wrongly represented as media reports “from the time of the Dosta movement” - which at the time of publishing these disinformation did not exist for a long time. In the article “Why is Darko Brkan nervous”, Avaz continues with equally incorrect and utterly confusing statements, which it was enough to open the listed portals and find that none of the following has anything to do with facts:

 Namely, Brkan, together with a few amateur journalists, leads raskrinkavanje.ba, glasometal.ba, analiziraj.ba, and several other small online media outlets.

To begin with, “Glasometar” is not an online media outlet - and certainly not an informative media outlet which would require journalistic work - but an application designed to inform voters about the views of political parties in the election period, developed by AC “Why Not?” team in collaboration with organizations listed on the webpage. Other platforms run by AC “Why Not?” include website “Javna rasprava” (Public Discussion) which is also not an informative media outlet, but a platform for monitoring the work of the parliament and communication between citizens and their elected representatives in the legislature; and online media outlet “Istinomjer” existing since 2010, which evaluates statements of public office holders in terms of their consistency, truthfulness, and fulfillment of the promises they make in their public appearances and in the election period. “Analiziraj” platform is not run by Darko Brkan, nor anybody else from AC “Why Not?”, which can be identified on their platform, where it is stated that their published is “Center for Media and Policy Analysis” (https://analiziraj.ba/impressum/). The Collaboration between Analiziraj and Raskrinkavanje is, however, real and - like all aspects of our work that Avaz tries to show as “ambiguities” - is transparent and public. We contacted the editorial office of Avaz via email asking why do they claim that Darko Brkan runs the platform analiziraj.ba. This is the full answer we received: “Dnevni Avaz” 26th of June, 2019. Mr. Darko Brkan, with his analyzes, appears on the online media outlet analiziraj.ba, which is proven, for example, on these links: https://analiziraj.ba/2018/10/30/novi-clanovi-predsjednistva-na-udaru-laznih-vijesti/ - https://analiziraj.ba/2018/06/13/nove-teorije-zavjere-o-pravdi-za-davida/ Also, Raskrinkavanje.ba regularly transmits analyzes from the online media outlet Analiziraj.ba, which is proved by, among others, the texts to the next link: link:https://raskrinkavanje.ba/analiziraj-ba/analize As in the previous examples, it is obvious that the editorial staff and Avaz journalist did not even bother to get acquainted with the basic information of the websites they are writing about during their “research”, which they tried to cover up with random links and new nonsense claims in the submitted reply. The claim that publishing someone’s articles means that the person “runs” that online media outlet is so meaningless, to that extent that it is difficult to comment on it. Moreover, the fact that Avaz has been transmitting articles, analyzes and evaluations published on Istinomjer, by their logic, should be proof that Darko Brkan “runs Avaz” - especially since such examples have happened in an incomparably greater number of cases, than on Analiziraj.ba. This could also be the reason why Istinomjer, although the oldest and most famous AC “Why Not?” platform, is not listed as one of the “online media outlets” run by “anonymous and amateur journalists”, as Avaz journalists stated. It is also interesting to note here that the selection of “Istinomjer” articles transmitted by Avaz was very selective, and as a rule, they published only those articles of the political parties SDA or SDP which were given a negative rate, and those in which the statements of SBBBIH officials were given a positive note - although Istinomjer had many reversed examples. Thus, the analyzes selectively published by Avaz were usually transmitted and published with a sensationalist titles, both in print and online media. These are just some of them:

• FBiH Prime Minister did not fulfill his promise - Online media outlet istinomjer.ba determined on 2/8/2014
• BH Airlines is waiting for new partners, or some new government - Istinomjer about negotiations of FBiH Government 
• Bakir caught up in lies again: SDA fulfilled only 6 out of 432 promises made! - Istinomjer analyzed yesterday’s statement made by a BiH Presidency member 2/9/2014
• ISTINOMJER SDP election lines in only 2 minutes! 9/10/2014
• List of lied SDA-SDP - What did the political parties say four years ago, that they did not fulfill 17/9/2014
• BiH is surely walking towards the bottoms  of statistics - Results of Istinomjer’s analysis in various areas show an alarming state 
• ISTINOMJER: Historical delay in the fight against corruption - Application of the anti-corruption set of laws in FBiH 31/1/2015
• ISTINOMJER Anniversary of the protest: no revision of privatization and abolition of political privileges - everything’s the same… 8/2/2015
• Fadil Novalić grated with an “unfulfilled” rate - Istinomjer about Prime Minister’s promises 3/10/2015
• SBB fulfilled promises worth over a million KM - Istinomjer about SBB’s initiatives 18/11/2015
• Rulebook finally available to the public: Sebija Izetbegović was not allowed to use the official vehicle of the BiH Presidency! 19/7/2017
• Audit reports show: Budget of FBiH is not in suficit istinomjer.ba 11/10/2017
• Istinomjer on unfulfilled promises: Most have been made by SDA 29/3/2018
• Istinomjer: SBB fulfilled its promise and filed a criminal complaint against Fadil Novalic 5/10/2018 
• Istinomjer caught Fadil Novalić in a lie in the pre-election campaign: Government did not cancel Auction of Treasury Bills 18/10/2018
• Istinomjer rated Džaferović’s speech as inconsistent 4/10/2018 
• Istinomjer.ba on alleged 300,000 votes for SDA: Izetbegović lies 11/20/2018 

In addition to a series of false claims and malicious insinuations, the article Avaz published contains also a number of offensive qualifications that completely erase the boundary between reporting and expressing personal opinion (more precisely, animosity), and are used to cover up the lack of facts and arguments in the obvious intention of creating negative images of the person and organization that have been the subject of Avaz’s bizarre “feuilleton” for days. Thus, the aforementioned articles and the two “comments” that followed them (entitled “Farewell to the Brkan Case: In range with prostitution and organized crime” and “Brko, Brnake”) state that the person referred to is “soli pamet i mudruje, a sve debelo naplaćuje”, “ “has an axe to grind”, “kupi velike pare za prodavanje magle”, that he is a “weird, obscure guy”, “quasijournalist”, “grant start”, “probisvijet”, “in panic, nervous, and fear about losing his generous donations”, “in fear of actual revealing of what he is actually doing”, while those who write for Raskrinkavanje, the platform itself and organization that runs it, and described in a degrading way, as “amateur journalists”, “Brkan and his clan”, “quasi association”, “potralcici”, “nakaradni”, “in range with prostitution and organized crime.” The title of the first article published in Avaz, which announces the story “in whose service works Darko Brkan” we rate as a clickbait. Factually incorrect allegation of misuse of donations, that is, “buying apartments” and “collecting $121.685”, claims that media reports about it were published ten years ago, and claims that “Darko Brkan runs the online media outlet analiziraj.ba” we rate as fake news. The attempt to show the work of Raskrinkavanje as a try to regulate media, that is determining the content and relevance of media releases, we rate as disinformation and manipulation of facts. Selective publishing of answers Avaz received from Raskrinkavanje, the usage of degrading epithets, and openly hostile and unprofessional approach to “reporting” in which publicly available information about the work of the platform is presented in a manipulative and misleading manner, we rate as biased reporting. NOTE: 2/7/2019 We have found a total of 7 transmissions of Avaz articles, on the following online media outlets "Hayat", "Objektiva", "HIP", "Poskok", "Sarajevograd.ba", "BH-vijesti" and "Ekspresno". Out of the seven aforementioned media outlets, Hayat is the only one with an Impressum with contact information on its webpage, thus Raskrinkavanje has sent them a query. Since we did not receive any response, we rate all transmissions of Dnevni Avaz’s article the same as the original article.