Gordana Novaković: Today, We Have Two Separate Groups of Media That Cheer for Their Political Sides

(Source: Zoomer)

In a time when information is more accessible and faster than ever, yet its accuracy is increasingly questioned, journalism faces serious challenges. At the center of these challenges lies journalistic ethics—the responsibility and role of the media in shaping public awareness. When professional standards are not upheld, and the lines between freedom of expression and hate speech blur, the consequences go beyond words—hate speech increasingly spills over from digital to real life.

Physical attacks on journalists, activists, and citizens who dare to speak differently are often the final link in a chain that begins with discrimination and continues through hate speech wrapped in media campaigns that pave the way for threats. In a society where institutions fail and sanctions are absent, the question arises: Who is responsible for the omnipresent hate speech in the media? Is the responsibility solely on content creators, or also on editors, media owners, political actors who use hate speech as a strategy—and on those who remain silent?

I discussed the various layers of this problem with Gordana Novaković, Secretary General of the Press Council—a self-regulatory body established to monitor compliance with the Serbian Journalists’ Code of Ethics in print and online media and to resolve complaints from individuals and institutions about published content. The Council cannot sanction media outlets that violate the Code, but can issue moral sanctions in the form of public warnings by professional peers. Citizens can file complaints with the Complaints Commission to determine whether there has been a Code violation. With years of experience in the Council since its founding in 2009, Novaković closely monitors the media landscape and observes both current and historical trends.

Since the start of the student protests, there’s been a significant rise in citizen complaints to the Complaints Commission about media coverage. What are the most common complaints about, who is submitting them, and why?

Compared to previous years, the number of complaints this year is drastically higher—by the end of April, we already had 75 complaints, while the annual average is around 100. Nearly 90% of these are linked to the protests. Most are submitted by high school teachers, especially from smaller towns—not from Belgrade or Novi Sad. These individuals are subjected to organized media witch hunts—articles full of clichés and lacking real content, simultaneously published in multiple outlets with the sole purpose of discrediting them. It’s a formula: repeated expressions and attempts to delegitimize, like “Đilas’s activist,” “Šolak’s network,” “claims there was a genocide in Srebrenica,” “foreign-paid mercenaries,” “anti-Serb,” “protest organizers”—all without any evidence.

What’s the most alarming case in the last six months?

The most egregious case was with FON students, two brothers whose passports were published by several media outlets to show they held Croatian citizenship. This happened in January—passports of Lazar and Luka Stojaković were published by Večernje novosti and at least three other portals, almost simultaneously.

Publishing personal documents is a serious violation of privacy. The article aimed to portray them as foreign-funded protest organizers. This is discrimination on multiple levels: for their ideological views, for being part of a protesting student group, and for their nationality. The question is: how did the media obtain these documents? And worst of all—the intent was clearly to discredit these students, not to inform the public.

You mentioned teachers, but tabloids attack anyone critical of the government daily. Based on Press Council experience, which other groups have been targets, and how does this trend reflect on the media landscape?

Besides teachers—who have had it the worst—students, NGO representatives, certain prosecutors, judges, and journalists have also been targeted. Everyone attacked is, in one way or another, connected to or supportive of the protests.

We see a clear pattern: constant publication of non-informative articles meant to destroy reputations. That’s what we tried to address in the revisions of the Journalists’ Code at the end of last year, including a new clause banning media campaigns targeting individuals.

Why do you think these Code violations occur?

I believe they happen deliberately and knowingly—and that’s the biggest problem. The media publishing this content know exactly what they’re doing.

This is not new, but we haven’t seen it at this scale: identical articles with matching headlines appear nearly simultaneously on various websites. These sites don’t even share the same owner, indicating the texts weren’t written in-house, but rather produced centrally and distributed across media. That’s not editorial independence—it’s an orchestrated campaign.

How do you see the media’s role as a check on power, especially under the influence of political power centers?

The problem is that public interest becomes subordinate to political and economic power structures. That’s a serious violation—journalism should never serve private interests.

Sadly, there’s a growing split between media openly supporting the government—often more like propaganda outlets—and those theoretically critical of the government, though even among them we see signs of anti-propaganda, lacking professional distance.

Today we have two clearly divided media camps, metaphorically cheering for their political teams. That’s not inherently problematic—media can support certain values or views. What they can’t do is lie: not for the government, and not against its opponents.

And that’s the core issue—many pro-government outlets systematically publish content aimed at discrediting critics, while glorifying the government without critical scrutiny. In this environment, media can no longer act as a watchdog of power.

Where does that leave us—Serbian citizens?

There are a few editorial teams trying to work professionally, but they operate under immense pressure, threats, and financial hardship. A few investigative media still focus on the public interest—corruption, scandals, abuses—but survival is hard.

Pro-government media have virtually unlimited resources, funded by state budgets or public enterprises. The situation is grim. Compared to 15 years ago, when the Council was founded, I fear the media landscape is much worse today.

Who bears responsibility for spreading hate speech, especially when it turns into real-life violence?

At the last Complaints Commission session, we discussed whether media should report politicians’ statements—in this case, the president’s—that contain insults, threats, or discriminatory views, even if not legally defined as hate speech.

It’s nothing new—research consistently shows that hate speech in Serbia and the region originates primarily from politicians, then gets amplified by the media. Another major source is social media, where even influential individuals behave without accountability.

The problem arises when media uncritically repeat these statements—they then assume responsibility for disseminating them. Yes, statements from officials must be documented, but media should clearly distance themselves from hate speech, not amplify it.

Unfortunately, today’s societal climate encourages hate speech and rarely punishes it, which normalizes such behavior.

Have there been any positive developments in media reporting?

Yes. For example, there used to be brutal hate campaigns against the LGBTQ+ community. Through complaints and court rulings, such content has significantly decreased—at least for a while.

Now it’s sporadically returning, as actors realize they can operate with almost no consequences. Hate speech today is more complex and primarily ideological, but it also targets gender, nationality, and minority status. That’s deeply worrying.

You mentioned court rulings. How do you view the state’s role and current protection mechanisms?

Coming from the world of media self-regulation, I’m not in favor of harsh penalties—especially given past abuses of media laws. But the law must be enforced, and those spreading hate speech must be sanctioned, as it is illegal.

Still, for the media, I believe other mechanisms can help. I put more faith in education—not just of journalists but also the public. People need to know their rights and how to respond: by filing complaints with the Press Council or directly addressing editors.

Editors often justify sensational content by saying it gets the most clicks, and that’s what audiences want. That’s why I believe responsibility lies not only with institutions, but also with citizens.

We need a wider social movement: people should resist hateful content—don’t click, don’t read, don’t buy from media that spread hate. That’s a powerful message to the media: if hate no longer brings traffic, they’ll stop publishing it.

Dominant media shape public opinion. How can individuals and communities resist hate speech, especially from mainstream media?

The first step is awareness—recognizing certain content as unacceptable. People need to know how to identify hate speech and understand that sharing it helps spread it, even if their intent is to condemn it.

For example, someone sees a horrible headline and shares it saying, “look how awful this is.” But just by sharing it, they help increase its reach. Older generations do this with good intentions but unknowingly amplify the harm.

So, people need to know what constitutes impermissible content and how to fight it effectively and responsibly. Good intentions can have the opposite effect if not properly channeled.

Fighting hate doesn’t have to mean protesting, although that’s also important. It starts with everyday choices: don’t read, share, click, or buy from outlets promoting hate. That’s the signal to the media.

Another big issue is how people form opinions today. Media often don’t inform—they confirm existing beliefs. People don’t seek facts—they seek validation. They ignore anything that doesn’t fit their worldview.

That closes the public space—no exchange of ideas, no dialogue. And that’s what our society desperately lacks: debate. Instead of talking, we take sides. Everyone stays locked in their information bubble, convinced they’re right and the other side is not just wrong—but an enemy.

This stems from both media and political elites. They shape the discourse, and the public replicates it.

That’s why fighting hate speech must involve education, critical thinking, and active rejection of divisive content—rather than consuming and spreading it without question.