[Review: THE PUBLIC IS LOSING ITS PATIENCE: the Embassy was once burning, the ambassador had a narrow escape – this time he won’t!]

If you publish an article which with its title, its comment and with additional opinion as alleged public support instigates some kind of rerun of the arson of the US Embassy in the spring of 1999, then you certainly should attract the attention of the bodies which have the obligation to implement law and keep the public order. There is no official reaction about the article we are reviewing, except angry comments on Facebook (the ones we saw) why the Public Prosecution Office is mute… Anyway, it is a matter of a clear and unambiguous instigation of the public for violence towards the Embassy of world’s No. 1 force, which appears to be a huge political problem and also a crucial problem for the country which hosts high official of the White House at this time!

Link to the original article: ЈАВНОСТА ГО ГУБИ ТРПЕНИЕТО: амбасадата еднаш гореше, амбасадорот спаси глава – овој пат нема!

Date and time of publishing: 09.07.2016

Date of review: 11.07.2016

Reviewer: Ljubomir Kostovski

“MEASURING” CITIZENS’ ANXIETY!

“The torture and dictate by the Embassy and its head, the US ambassador, upon Macedonia and its people started breaking camel’s back and started going beyond the limits of tolerance, especially after the latest information and evidence we published regarding the direct pressuring of the courts and Baily’s control over the Special Public Prosecution Office with the aim of carrying out political forays. Baily’s public statements started causing wrath among the citizens, who use the social media to express their disagreement and warning as well.”

This article, as a support of the probably well “measured” public opinion on the work of a foreign ambassador, has only one motive and let’s say – evidence. This is the reaction expressed by a person, who oftentimes calls himself our colleague, on his personal Facebook profile, whose opinion was often a subject of private lawsuits, and whose opinion from one private corner (of course, the social networks privacy issue is a bit more complex case) via website becomes a part of the public space, which has an unambiguous definition.

In Nedelkovski’s relatively short post, that has a trampoline in this article, there is a reminder that the US Embassy was once burning and those inside “had a narrow escape”, but now they “would have gone to the Happy hunting grounds”. This article is too detestable to be literally quoted (especially in public space), plus it is accompanied by Nedelkovski’s “annex” in the form of a link to the Macedonian patriotic song “Macedonian motherland”, giving a patriotic aura to the future violence.

Plus, the uploaded image isn’t technically clear, of course it has to strengthen the impression, i.e. has its own threatening flair (the fire in the US Embassy), which can be understood as paving the way for his own future pyro urges. Clearly, the image ought to be seen through the prism of the content he tries to show. But, we are not dealing with just a message from a third person. The article starts with a comment (the unassigned article becomes an article of the newsroom), then it mixes genres and becomes some kind of para-political pasquinade. However, it is clear from the first lines – the words “dictate and torture by a foreign Embassy” are used, the name of the ambassador is used as a “culprit” for the aforementioned actions. There is a threat that he won’t “make it”. The title is “suggestible” enough, it is directional and gives the image for the target that he wants to meet with such “mobilizing” article.

UNUS TESTIS, NULUS TESTIS

Of course, there are no evidence of public’s reaction, except the use of Nedelkovki’s message. How the newsroom assesses the relevancy of that opinion in order to make it relevant? Should we remind of the Latin proverb “Unus testis, nulus testis”, i.e. “One witness is no witness”! There is no answer to that dilemma, except that we have to indirectly understand that it is a matter of the most undisputable authority in this country regarding the protection of the public interest!

Recently, a similar call on violence such as “what I would do to them”, from the aforementioned Nedelkovski, was intended for dozens of specified journalists that ended with a proposal for initiating a criminal proceeding, but that proposal was “pardoned” by the High Public Prosecution Office! But after their colleagues from the Basic Public Prosecution Office didn’t find him guilty and confirmed that he is not in the reach of Justitia. The call on putting journalists to rest was assessed – let’s simplify this – as some kind of private and meaningless opinion. But if the High Public Prosecution Office reads the article we are reviewing, which has international consequences, whether the same body, competent of initiating appropriate criminal proceedings, will have a change of heart?

The positive side of this article we are reviewing is that now the prosecutors cannot say that they do not notice the violence instigating!