RTV Theory and Practice - Special Issue

brotherhood with all the other nations and nationalities in Vugoslavia. As aiways in Ufe, here too it was necessary to seek and fmd a specific measure according to which аИ components will be m a dialectical symbiosis and represent a sociahy valorized optimum. It seems to me that we have been burdened by some other trends which are the result of the fact that television is not an institution m itselt but rather part of a society, even the mirror of one happenmg... Therefce, all those processes which have in the negative sense of the word accompaiued Vugoslav development doubtless also found expression in television. Today we within television are seeking for a new method of the integration of the television programme which would serve, ш the ideological sense of the word, self-management integration and by means of television expression would serve to encourage some processes to consolidate the sense of feUowship m the Vugoslav community. Мапу problems confront us m the search for this. 1 consider that a certain number of mistakes are also made aithough the theory is quite clear and there is no problem as to what the television programme should be like in the sense of its pohtical influence. We аге, however, overburdened by the former state ot affairs and also by our own specific characteristics on which we insist ourselves too much while not sensing the specmc characteristics of others. The propaganda function of television, which is in my opinion of fundamental importance, is such because television is the most powerful of the mass media in the history of mankind. It has had a vital influence on the formation of the social consciousness of man 5 and it is in the sphere of propaganda that television’s role is the most - marked. There are, however, many incomplete views of television as a medium, not only within television itself but also outside television and within the political structure. I have the feehng that we have not yet had a serious dialogue in society on »the complementary nature of the mass media«. The press conducts itself as a law unto itself, so does television. Iлсаl radios and local papers are not to be forgotten here. All these are new factors which in the last twenty years have essentially changed some situations; in the press, radio and •television. Television cannot take the place of the press, nor can it be {the one and only form of mass media but there again neither can the : press replace television and the same is true for radio. A glance at the composition of radio programmes 25 years ago will ;.;show that nothing has essentially changed in the basic structure of the radio programme although it is a fact that lelevision as a new medium came into being in this very period. This in itself should have caused a change in the attitude towards the

93