The debate “Should a journalist have a political stance?”, organized by the Press Council, was held yesterday at the UNS Press Center, with the participation of journalists and editors. The discussion focused on how journalists’ public expression of political stances affects the public’s trust in their work and the media they work for, as well as the expression of political opinions on private accounts on social networks. One of the topics was the need to develop internal editorial guidelines that would regulate these issues.

Olivera Milošević, a member of the Complaints Commission of the Press Council and Vice President of the UNS, who provided the framework for the discussion, pointed out the need to distinguish between personal political stance, public political expression and political action, such as party engagement or participation in a campaign. “It is important to make a distinction between personal commentary, or stance, and cheering or openly advocating for a political option,” said Milošević. She pointed out that the key question is not whether a journalist is allowed to have political beliefs, but what happens when they become publicly visible and begin to influence his professional work or create doubts among the public about his impartiality.

Milošević stressed that journalists are expected to fact-check, talk to all relevant stakeholders, clearly separate facts from commentary, and not allow personal views to influence the selection and processing of information. “We should not expect journalists to have no political beliefs, but to be able to put them aside when doing their job,” she said. However, she added that it is also necessary to consider how the public perceives their work, especially since social media blurs the line between a journalist’s private and professional identity. She also pointed to the importance of internal editorial rules on the public expression of political views.

How newsrooms separate journalism and activism

When asked by Gordana Novaković, Secretary General of the Press Council, whether editorial offices have rules on the public expression of political views, Zoomer editor Nemanja Marinović said that the youth media outlet adopted internal rules after the start of the student protests. As he stated, a particular challenge was that some young journalists and correspondents were already involved in the student movement.

“We solved this in such a way that our permanently employed journalists in the editorial office were not allowed to be part of the plenum or working groups or any other student bodies during the protest blockades,” explained Marinović, adding that they cannot be engaged in the student movement even now. The editorial office treats associates from smaller communities who participate in the movement as sources of information. “They can film the protests and send them to us. Then we process it later as journalists, and the journalists themselves must be people who are not directly engaged in the movement,” he said.

He said that the rules also apply to social networks, where journalists cannot announce who they will vote for or publicly support a particular electoral option.

The editor of the Mašina portal, Marko Miletić, stated that the media outlet emerged from an activist movement and the civil sector, but that over time the editorial team established a clearer boundary between journalistic work and activism.

“For us, at the beginning, there was no dilemma about the connection between our work as a media outlet and being part of some activist groups. Over time, we came to make some distinctions, so we came to have our own internal rules,” said Miletić.

According to these rules, journalists cannot be members of political parties or active participants in protests, and they are not allowed to support election lists on social media. They must be clearly identified as journalists at events they cover.

The participants also discussed the differences between social and political engagement, while some of them assessed that journalists’ advocacy for solving important social problems can be useful and desirable.

Journalist Nikola Krstić pointed out that these areas cannot be strictly separated. “These social issues are also political,” he said.

Olivera Milošević reminded that even actions that do not represent open support for a political option can be interpreted as alignment. As an example, she cited the case of Euronews journalists who opposed the editor’s decision to publish a statement on behalf of the entire editorial staff condemning the protests in front of RTS. She pointed out that such opposition was also interpreted as political affiliation.

Impartiality in conditions of limited access and pressures

Regarding the question of why one side is more visible in the content of some media outlets despite the rules on impartiality, representatives of the editorial offices spoke about limited access to ruling party rallies, harassment of journalists and security risks. Miletić stated that Mašina does not receive information about these events and that journalists are often not allowed to access them.

“Given that we had security problems, we are assessing the situation to see if we can go somewhere or if we should go because we don’t want to be attacked,” said Miletić, adding that the editorial office publishes statements submitted to it by political parties.

Nemanja Marinović also pointed out the difference in resources between small and large media outlets, which determines how many events they can cover.

Danilo Erdeljan from Blokada info raised the question of whether each media outlet should ensure political pluralism in its own content or whether this obligation should be observed at the level of the entire media space in Serbia. He also pointed out the role of the public media service in ensuring pluralism.

Propaganda as editorial policy

Krstić questioned the notion of neutrality, stating that newsrooms have values ​​and ideological principles that shape their work. He particularly pointed out the position of the media in circumstances where they are exposed to pressure for reporting critically about the government.

“We are no longer sure whether the media can be completely neutral, when one side, which has all possible resources, is stifling the media and all those who dare to write critically about them,” said Krstić.

Gordana Novaković explained that media can have different editorial policies, but that they must not jeopardize the truthful presentation of facts and their context.

“The moment editorial policy slips into propaganda, then we have a different situation,” Olivera Milošević continued.

Journalist Bojan Cvejić assessed that the Code of Journalists of Serbia provides a basis for action, especially through provisions on conflict of interest, while the details should be regulated within the editorial offices. “There is an entire chapter on conflict of interest and I think that is quite sufficient at the level of the Code, and then it is up to the editorial offices to regulate the details in their internal guidelines,” he said.

Cvejić also stressed that internal rules should be publicly available and regularly updated. He assessed that the problem is that many editorial offices do not have written guidelines, while some that do not publish them. “I think the public has the right to read what rules they adhere to outside of the Code,” he said.

Social networks: Personal profile, consequences for the entire editorial team

Different opinions were heard about how much posts on personal social media accounts affect the credibility of journalists and media outlets. Milica Vukomanović, a journalist at Istinomer, assessed that the type of journalism a person engages in should be taken into account, as well as the fact that the work of their editorial team is based on verifiable evidence.

“While we’re on the subject, we need to separate the type of journalism a person does from the restrictions on that public appearance. My appearance at a protest will not necessarily jeopardize my article because my article is supported by evidence,” she said. She added that one should not be equally rigorous towards all journalists and that the political stance expressed by a journalist who follows culture is not the same as that expressed by one who reports on daily politics.

She also pointed to the personal role of social media. “As much as social media is part of a public space, for many journalists it is still a kind of outlet, and I think it should be separated from the media as such,” she said.

Miletić, however, assessed that even posts intended for friends are not completely private, as they can be recorded and further shared. “Any expression of views on social networks is a public appearance and participation in some kind of discussion, and it can also be transferred to the media outlet where you work,” he said. He added that such connections are not necessarily bad, but that journalists should be aware of how their views can be reflected by the audience on the editorial staff.

Marinović also assessed that journalists send messages to the public on social networks and that such appearances can have both positive and negative consequences for the media outlet.

Cvejić made a distinction between conversations within a narrow circle of people and posting on social media. “Social media is a mass medium and that content can reach those you didn’t want to see your position,” he said.

He also warned that the public can attribute the personal views of one journalist to the entire editorial team, even when that view is not visible in its content. “This calls into question your work and the work of the entire media,” he said. The discussion also pointed out the insufficient media literacy of the public, which does not always distinguish between the personal views of journalists, author’s comments and editorial policy.

The right to an opinion and the risk of political pressure

The conversation also highlighted that political pressure and punishment of journalists should be distinguished from responsibility for violating professional rules.

Milošević also pointed out the position of journalists who do not share the editorial policy of the media they work in. “There are many journalists who work in media that have a completely different editorial policy than what the journalist actually thinks,” she said, emphasizing that these circumstances should also be taken into account when discussing public expression of opinions.

The following key messages emerged from the debate, without adopting a universal solution:

• Journalists’ personal beliefs should not compromise fact-checking , impartial reporting, and a clear separation of facts from commentary.
• It is necessary to distinguish social engagement from political propaganda . Advocating for human rights and condemning violence are different from party engagement and calling for votes for a particular political option.
• It is necessary for newsrooms to have clear and publicly available internal guidelines . The rules should be agreed with journalists, taking into account the type of work they do and possible conflicts of interest.
• Editorial policy must not compromise the truthfulness of reporting . Media may have different values ​​and ideological orientations, but they must present facts accurately and in the appropriate context.
• Journalists’ posts on social media can affect trust in the entire editorial team . There is no consensus on the limits of such expression, and the question of how private personal profiles can be remains open.
• Political pressures should be distinguished from responsibility for violating the Code . Terminations and sanctions for critical reporting or covering protests do not in themselves prove unprofessional conduct on the part of journalists.
• When assessing the representation of political actors, the working conditions of the media should be taken into account . Limited access to events, security risks and lack of resources can affect the scope of reporting.
• It is necessary to improve the media literacy of the audience . It is important for citizens to distinguish between the personal views of journalists, authorial comments, editorial policy and political propaganda.