Council: Eight Portals Violated the Code of Journalists of Serbia
(Source: NUNS) The Complaints Commission of the Press Council decided at a session held yesterday at the UNS Press Center that the portals Kurir, Novosti, Informer, Alo, Blic, 24/7, Užice Oglasna Tabla and Radar violated the Code of Journalists of Serbia.
The Commission first considered a complaint by Igor Bandović of the Belgrade Centre for Security Policy (BCSP) against the Kurir portal over two articles in which civil society organizations were accused of obstructing Serbia’s path toward the European Union. The complaints stated that NGOs were portrayed as a “parallel center of power without accountability” and a “mechanism for dealing with the competition,” without evidence to support such claims.
In its response, Kurir stated that the disputed articles were part of a series of articles about research by the BCSP, in which, according to the editorial office, Kurir was accused of spreading pro-Russian propaganda. The Commission, however, unanimously assessed that Kurir had violated provisions of the Code concerning the truthfulness of reporting, independence from influence, respect for dignity, and treatment of sources.
Commission member Milena Vasić assessed that this was malicious reporting that portrayed the work of non-governmental organizations as biased.
“Such reporting seriously damages the reputation and trust that citizens have in non-governmental organizations, and in that sense I think it is very dangerous,” Vasić said.
Sanja Pavlović added that the articles demonstrated a “dangerous reversal of the argument,” because “responsibility for the lack of progress in the integration process is being placed on civil society.”
Criticism of the Work of a Public Figure Is Not Targeting
Novosti, Informer, Alo and Kurir violated the Code in the sections concerning the truthfulness of reporting, journalists’ responsibility and respect for dignity when they wrote about Sandro Gozi, Secretary-General of the European Democratic Party, as a “lobbyist for an independent Kosovo who supports the blockaders,” after he challenged Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić to a debate.
Alo and Novosti added that “the blockaders are exclusively close to people who unreservedly support the weakening and fragmentation of Serbia,” while Informer wrote that Gozi was an “Albanian lobbyist” and that he had been a member of a “neo-fascist” party in Italy.
Gozi, who complained about the reporting by these media outlets, stated that the articles were “malicious” and that no one had requested his comment, arguing that this was a campaign directed against him.
Kurir considered the complaint unfounded and referred to a provision of the Law on Public Information and Media concerning public officials, according to which they are required to tolerate criticism relating to their work.
Commenting on the complaint, Commission member Jelena Petković characterized the articles as “planned propaganda, targeting and an attack on character.” She added that, although the articles concerned a public figure who should have a greater tolerance for criticism in the media, the disputed articles were not intended as criticism.
“It is important to emphasize that this is actually an attack on the student and civil protests. These articles send the message that anyone who has any kind of contact with him (Gozi) will be considered all of these things,” Petković said.
Health Information Is Not Entertainment News
Blic.rs violated the Code when it published a report stating that folk-music composer Milutin Popović Zahar had sought medical assistance at a hospital due to an injury. The Commission assessed that Blic journalists had failed to comply with the guidelines concerning the truthfulness of reporting and respect for privacy.
Popović stated in his complaint that, several hours after leaving the hospital, calls from family members and friends followed because they were worried, and that the inaccurate reporting had caused him “great stress, as well as public humiliation.”
Jelka Jovanović reminded the Commission that the information published by Blic constituted protected data, while Jelena Petković pointed to the problem of reporting on celebrities as a section in which the right to privacy is often violated.
“Journalists who cover the entertainment industry have absolutely no consideration when
they violate someone’s right to privacy… Someone is essentially reading you a medical report, that is, what the doctor told that person. That must not be done, yet it keeps happening,” Petković noted.
Repeated Targeting of Veran Matić and ANEM
The portals Novosti, Alo, 24/7 and Užice Oglasna Tabla published the same article in which
Veran Matić, Chairman of the Board of the Association of Independent Electronic Media (ANEM), was targeted again. The article described Matić as the “architect of the color revolution,” while claiming that ANEM’s members had “worked day and night against Serbia and Serbian interests.”
Matić stated in his complaint that the article had been written with clear malicious intent: “Fabrications, the maliciousness of the language, and manipulation of context simultaneously constitute a revision and fabrication of my past work, and a devious deception of the public about what I am doing today.”
Filip Švarm reminded the Commission that this was the third time it had discussed articles targeting Veran Matić.
“There is nothing else we can add here except what we have already repeated so many times… This only further shows that the aim is to revise the interpretation of the 1990s,” Švarm said.
Jelena Petković agreed with Filip Švarm’s assessment and added that the intention to revise the interpretation of the past could be seen precisely in the amount of effort invested in writing such articles.
“To put everything into the wrong context – that is horrific and truly dangerous, not only for Veran, but also for ANEM’s members. Many of them live and work in small towns where they are recognizable, and all of them are being placed in danger,” Petković explained.
The Commission unanimously concluded that the media outlets had violated the Code in the sections concerning the truthfulness of reporting, independence from influence, journalists’ responsibility, and respect for dignity.
Accurate Data Does Not Mean That Suspicion Has Been Proven
The Commission also considered a complaint by the company “Aptus” LLC against the Radar portal over the article “And They Divide the Money According to the Wrong Recipe.” The company stated that the article presented inaccurate and incomplete conclusions insinuating a privileged position and irregularities in public procurement, without a clear methodology or evidence, and that the editorial office had not contacted Aptus before publication.
Radar responded that “Aptus” did not identify a single specific inaccurate or fabricated piece of information in its complaint, but rather disputed the “contextualization” of accurate and verifiable information taken from public registries. It also stated that the company had not been contacted before publication because the article relied exclusively on publicly available data.
Zlatko Čobović said that he believed Radar had not violated the Code.
“All the data used by Radar were taken from official sources… and therefore I think it was not necessary for Radar to call the company before publishing the article,” Čobović said.
He also questioned what exactly the company was expected to comment on in this case.
“On whether the data are accurate?”
Olivera Milošević, however, pointed out that Radar had not substantiated the headline claim that the public procurement procedures were “suspicious.”
“In the article, we have no evidence that anything concerning this company is suspicious… Due diligence was exercised, but not enough to substantiate any suspicion, and in that case I think there may have been, perhaps unintentionally, a disqualification of the complainant,” Milošević explained.
The Commission members largely agreed with this assessment and decided that Radar had nevertheless violated the Code, specifically the sections on “truthfulness of reporting” and “treatment of sources.”