Texts from “One Center” – How Discreditation Campaigns Function in the Media

(Source: NUNS) Discreditation campaigns in domestic media are characterized by identical or nearly identical texts that appear within a short period of time on multiple portals and are, as a rule, directed at individuals who criticize the authorities. Such content has become almost a daily occurrence, especially since the beginning of the protests, and after the collapse of the railway station canopy in Novi Sad, when 16 people were killed. These are contents filled with disinformation and manipulative claims, and such campaigns are particularly dangerous in smaller communities, where targeting can directly endanger the safety of the individuals against whom the campaign is conducted. This pattern was recognized by the Complaints Commission of the Press Council when deciding on complaints about tabloid articles, which is why a new provision prohibiting this type of “journalism” was introduced into the Journalists’ Code of Serbia.

In the Report on Monitoring Compliance with the Journalists’ Code of Serbia in the Print Media for the second half of last year, prepared by journalist Vera Didanović and journalist Bojan Cvejić for the Press Council, these campaigns were also singled out.

“The simultaneous publication of texts with completely identical content in multiple media outlets is once again noticeable, indicating influence on editorial policy from a single external center,” the Report states.

The author of the Report, journalist and former member of the Press Council’s Complaints Commission Bojan Cvejić, told NUNS that such texts are typically characterized by the absence of interlocutors and sources, are unsigned, and cannot be classified into any journalistic form studied in journalism theory.

“These are a kind of pamphlets in which facts are either distorted and placed in a negative context, or comments and speculation are presented, all of which is contrary to the Journalists’ Code of Serbia and to all other civilizational standards. Such texts clearly spread propaganda—positive toward the activities of the authorities and ruling structures, and negative toward all those who think differently and express critical views in public,” Cvejić explains.

Precisely because of the increasingly frequent campaigns conducted against individuals in the media, the new Journalists’ Code of Serbia includes a new provision (Point 3, Chapter V) stating that journalists are obliged “to respect the principle of not harming the reputation and dignity of individuals and not to participate in spreading falsehoods or in the continuous malicious damage to the reputation of persons they report on,” i.e., in discreditation campaigns.

The Secretary General of the Press Council, Gordana Novaković, says that this provision was introduced into the Code based on the experience of the Complaints Commission.

“We had cases where media campaigns were conducted against certain individuals (series of texts were published with practically always the same content), and we did not have a specific provision in the Code to regulate this. Of course, it could have been subsumed under existing provisions, but we felt that was not sufficient to point out the intentional damage to someone’s reputation—texts that have no informative value whatsoever and whose sole purpose is to cause harm,” Novaković states.

More than Half of Code Violations Due to the New Provision

The Complaints Commission recorded 59 cases last year, out of a total of 110 violations, in which Point 3 of Chapter V of the Code was violated, the Secretary General says.

“In other words, in more than 50 percent of cases, precisely that provision was violated. In the majority of complaints related, directly or indirectly, to the student and civic protests that lasted almost the entire year of 2025, reference is also made to the deliberate spreading of falsehoods in order to harm dignity and reputation. These are not always campaigns; sometimes it is one or two articles, but the method of ‘reporting’ is the same,” she explains.

Novaković adds that the choice of media outlets that will publish such texts often depends on the community from which the targeted person originates.

“Usually there are two or three media outlets with national coverage (most often Informer, Alo, and Novosti) and two or three local ones. Sometimes complainants do not file complaints against all the media that published something—perhaps they did not see all of them or not all cause the same level of harm,” she says.

Local Discreditation Campaigns Are Even More Dangerous

At its last session, the Complaints Commission decided on complaints filed by Dejan Spasić against five media outlets. Informer, NS uživo, 025 Info, Gradske info, and the Novosadska TV portal published a text with completely identical content on December 15 last year.

“Dejan is a failed student who is 29 years old and who, from the beginning, imposed himself as the leader of the student protests in Kula. Like all those similar to him, Dejan regularly appears on tycoon television stations. Because how else… When they share the same goal and interest—to destroy the state and rake in money,” the published texts state.

It further claims that Spasić is “the son and grandson of arrested criminals who robbed pensioners,” and that “after they spent the money they stole, they ‘pushed’ Dejan into politics through student protests so they could rob again”—without any evidence.

The media machinery was mobilized because local elections in Kula are approaching, which is precisely one of the reasons such campaigns intensify at the local level. Another, as a rule, is the discreditation of student protests.

The outcome: violations of multiple chapters of the Journalists’ Code of Serbia.

In its reasoning, the Complaints Commission stated that “members assessed that such texts represent a continuation of settling accounts with citizens participating in protests against the authorities and that their sole purpose is the discreditation of the complainant, who, along with family members, is linked—without any evidence—to certain criminal offenses.” It was also added that the content “resembles a political pamphlet more than a journalistic text.”

Discreditation campaigns in the media affect public opinion, but also the individuals targeted and their families.

Bojan Cvejić emphasizes that media literacy in Serbia is at a low level, meaning that a significant portion of the audience does not critically observe everything presented to them.

“When something is broadcast and published in a large number of mainstream media outlets with significant reach, part of the audience accepts it as fact. And since the goal is mostly to spin and maliciously damage the reputation of certain individuals whose opinions do not suit certain structures, this not only damages their reputation but also endangers their safety. If you label someone a state enemy, a foreign mercenary, or blame them for everything bad happening in the country, for part of the audience that accepts this as truth, it can provoke various forms of aggression,” Cvejić explains.

“This is particularly dangerous and worrying when it concerns individuals from smaller communities, at the local level, where the consequences of such narratives spread by an organized media machinery can spill over to their families and people in their surroundings, further intensifying feelings of threat and insecurity,” he adds.

Campaigns Against Public Prosecutors, Students, Professors, Journalists…

“One of the more noticeable campaigns of this type was conducted against the Chief Public Prosecutor for Organized Crime Mladen Nenadić, the Rector of the University of Belgrade Vladan Đokić, the Vice-Rector and former President of the Assembly of Infrastructure of Serbian Railways Nebojša Bojović, who held that position at the time of the canopy collapse and resigned afterward, and the former Executive Director of Infrastructure of Serbian Railways Milutin Milošević. The fact that they were photographed together in a restaurant was characterized as a ‘scandal’ without any explanation, just as no arguments were offered for the accusations that were then repeated for days and related to responsibility for the Novi Sad canopy collapse. None of those targeted were offered the opportunity to present their version of events,” the new Monitoring Report states.

At sessions of the Complaints Commission, texts of this kind targeting public prosecutors, certain students in blockade, journalists, and other critics of the regime have been discussed multiple times.

“In other words, people who participated in or were associated with the protests. Although there were also those who were not participants—public prosecutors, for example—but were nevertheless portrayed as actors in a colored revolution. Individually, the highest number of complaints were filed by prosecutors Bojana Savović and Jasmina Paunović, and by FON students, brothers Luka and Lazar Stojaković,” says the Secretary General of the Press Council.

At its next session, the Complaints Commission will decide on a complaint filed by Veran Matić against 25 internet portals. All of them continued the campaign initiated against Matić by the government’s favored non-governmental organization, the Center for Social Stability, presenting a series of falsehoods and accusations in the so-called documentary “Evil Age 2,” which was broadcast on several television stations, including those with national frequencies.

In response to this discreditation campaign, numerous domestic and international media and journalistic associations and institutions reacted.

“We have no doubt that the dehumanizing campaign against Matić is backed by the very top of the state… The fact that the film (‘Evil Age 2’) was broadcast on a large number of television stations close to the authorities and widely promoted shows that this is an organized and targeted campaign. In it, Matić is primitively and sensationalistically declared an enemy of the state and society, effectively calling for his lynching. He is labeled a ‘foreign agent’ who has worked against Serbia for decades,” the Coalition for Media Freedom stated.

The International Press Institute (IPI) from Vienna also condemned the campaign.

“The film, produced by an obscure organization linked to the state, contains numerous inaccurate and sensationalist accusations and uses dangerous rhetoric,” IPI stated.

The President of the European Federation of Journalists, Maja Sever, assessed that the film about Veran Matić and everything happening in Serbia recently is dangerous, while the Director of the Reporters Without Borders bureau in Prague, Pavol Salai, called on Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić “to clearly distance himself from the campaign.”

“Otherwise, if anything happens to Veran Matić, we will consider the President of Serbia responsible,” Salai said.

Despite all of the above, the campaign continued with a statement by the Center for Social Stability accusing Matić of acting “against the state interests of Serbia,” announcing that “a thematic special dedicated to his devoted work on certain anti-state projects will soon be released.”

Additionally, on its social media accounts, the Center for Social Stability announced more obscure content targeting 45 journalists, media workers, and associates of independent media and journalists.

The Question Arises: Who Edits These Media?

When almost identical texts appear within a span of just a few hours—or even minutes—in several different newsrooms, often unsigned and without a clear source, it is hard to believe that this is a coincidence or a “coincidence of editorial judgment.”

Gordana Novaković says that everything indicates they were written and distributed from a single center.

“Whether they originate in one of the newsrooms or outside them, we cannot know. It is also possible that a text created in one newsroom is sent by an editor to other media outlets, although such cooperation with competitors is truly unusual. In any case, regardless of how this mechanism functions, this practice is very bad and has nothing to do with serious and responsible journalism, nor with the basic task of journalists—to inform in accordance with the public interest,” Novaković states.

She reminds editors that they are responsible for the content they publish.

“The decision on what to publish in their media outlet is exclusively theirs. They are also responsible for everything they publish, regardless of how a particular piece of content originated. The explanations ‘we just republished it’ or ‘we faithfully republished it and cited the source,’ which we receive from some newsrooms, are simply not acceptable,” Novaković concludes.

Author: Ivana Kragulj