Author: Alexander Detev
I think it is important that you first of all answer categorically to the following question: does the Council for Electronic Media want to elect a new director general of BNT?
Prolet Velkova: A categorical "yes"! In the person of four of its members, the CEM clearly and unwaveringly shows the will for BNT to finally have a legitimate director. You see how, with all the means of the law, the regulator is trying to slalom through the dozens of complaints that have attacked our efforts to conduct a fair and transparent procedure for electing a legitimate director general. What Emil Koshlukov is not, although he has a formal legal basis for not moving from his position as head. He is not legitimate, because he has been holding on to the position for almost three and a half years out of mandate, without a management concept, without clarity in front of the public about where the television is headed, without the support of the CEM and with his candidacy rejected twice. And without the necessary public authority.
Who is stopping you then?
Prolet Velkova: The decisions of the CEM, which led to a new election, were attacked with dozens of complaints in court - by Koshlukov, by Sasho Yovkov and by Irina Velichkova. All three are unsuccessful candidates in the previous procedure for the election of the general director of BNT. 3 and a half years have passed in legal disputes. This delay was also due to the lack of expeditiousness of the court - accidental or not - as well as to a sprained ankle, sudden illness or an unavoidable business trip of one of the mourners, exactly on the days of the court hearings, so that they were repeatedly postponed and postponed.
Lastly, a few days ago, in response to another complaint from Sasho Yovkov, the court ordered us to stop the announced and already started procedure for selecting the general director of BNT. The puzzling fact is that on a similar complaint from Koshlukov, the court recently ruled in exactly the opposite sense. Moreover, these two contradictory decisions came from the same judicial panel. There were other puzzling moments in this three-year saga - for example, the random distribution of cases always assigned the same judge to hear them.
Emil Koshlukov accused the CEM of "trampling on the law". Where is the biggest problem that allows the farce that we have witnessed in the last three years - in the laws themselves or in their instrumentalization?
Prolet Velkova: My humble opinion as a layman regarding the law is that laws have nothing to do with it. It all comes down to the administration of justice and what motivates it.
As for this slander that the CEM tramples on the law, I will say that the regulator uses only legal means, moving towards the goal of electing a legitimate head of public television.
"BNT should do much more for civic education"
Does the CEM register problems in the work of BNT under the leadership of Koshlukov? What are they?
Prolet Velkova: The Director General of BNT has a commitment to report on his work to the CEM every six months. Since I have been a member of the regulator, I have never supported Koshlukov's report, because BNT does not show the necessary degree of commitment to the most important public issues such as corruption, the geopolitical orientation of our country, the rule of law. I believe that public media should be much more concerned about the awareness of the audience on all topics related to the state of Bulgarian democracy. I believe that BNT, as a public media, should do much more for the civic enlightenment of its audience. How many serious investigations have you seen on BNT's screen? To what extent does the television allow itself a critical tone towards those in power, no matter who they are?
"Reformation" of the CEM for the purpose of control - a possible scenario
I ask you as a journalist with many years of experience: Are you worried about the reputation of the public media and the people's trust in journalism because of this unsolvable case?
Prolet Velkova: Of course. In democratic countries, public media are the pillar of independent and responsible journalism. Because they are legally obligated to serve the public interest, and only it. And this case shows how the public media is harnessed to the service of its boss. And perhaps not only him. Because it is clearly visible that Koshlukov is holding on to his post only as a result of a strategically planned and well-coordinated action.
What is happening to BNT is in complete contradiction with the European Media Freedom Act, which orders states to strengthen public media and guarantee their editorial independence. However, to what extent can we talk about editorial independence in a public media outlet that is practically privatized by its head? Editorial independence is the first condition for quality journalism. This belief is shared by the majority in the CEM, but perhaps it is not liked in some political circles. This is how I explain the recent frequent comments about disbanding, reforming or even closing the CEM. Closing the regulatory body is impossible, since it is mandatory for every European country. But "reforming" of the regulator in order to control it is a possible scenario.
If such a scenario works, it would mean less editorial independence, more obedient journalists, more uninformed citizens.
And finally: When will BNT have a new director?
Prolet Velkova: When the court rules in favor of this very public interest that we are talking about and allows us to conduct the already announced procedure for selecting a new director. Or when Koshlukov himself resigns, saving the remnants of his honor and the honor of the television. Or... we'll see!