Press Council: NS Uživo, Info Liga, Rešetka and Prokuplje Press violated the Code
(Source: NUNS ) The Complaints Commission of the Press Council decided at yesterday’s session that the portals NS uzivo, Info liga, Rešetka and Prokuplje press violated the Code of Journalists of Serbia .
Targeting on the NS Live portal
The Commission first considered the complaint of Stevan Gostojić and Darko Marčetić against the NS Uživo portal for an article in which they were presented as organizers of a politically motivated action aimed at destabilizing the University and the state. Marčetić was labeled as the “main stormtrooper and ideological leader” and a “Plenkovićite”, while Gostojić was presented as his “right-hand man” and a “USAID professor”, connected to “foreign centers of power”.
The complainants stated that the claims were untrue and made without sources and the opportunity to respond to them, and that Marčetić’s private photos from his vacation were published without authorization. The NS Live portal did not respond to the complaint.
Tamara Skrozza assessed that just reading the title was enough to see that the Code was violated.
“That malicious tone is something that is characteristic of the style of such texts, so this is typical targeting,” said Skrozza.
New Commission member Dušan Aleksić, an associate professor at the Faculty of Philosophy in Niš, who replaced Rodoljub Šabić, warned that such “drawing a target on a person’s forehead” could incite physical attacks and interethnic hatred. He recalled the case when the former dean of the Faculty of Philosophy in Niš was attacked because of Informer’s reporting.
After a brief discussion, the Commission unanimously decided that the provisions of the Code relating to the truthfulness of reporting, independence from influence, responsibility of journalists, respect for dignity, respect for privacy and treatment of sources were violated.
Info League did not provide the other side
Milanko Paunović, on whose behalf his son Ivan filed the complaint, complained against the Info liga portal about the text and video reports in which he was presented as a person blocking the road and endangering the daily lives of the residents of Gliječa. He stated that the portal did not verify the claims or contact him, and that by publishing his name and the location of his property, it jeopardized his privacy, reputation and safety.
The portal’s editor-in-chief, Beba Bojović, responded that the editorial team was enduring pressure from Paunović, that they had not contacted him because he was not on the scene, but that he had been offered several times to present his side of the story, which he did not take advantage of.
The members of the Commission pointed out that the report was not impartial and that the journalist did not speak to all relevant parties. Tamara Skrozza emphasized that the media is responsible for the content it publishes and that a citizen cannot be treated as a public figure.
Dušan Aleksić said that the biggest problem in the controversial text is the lack of impartiality.
“I’m not sure that the journalist actually wanted to investigate the problem in a way that is done in accordance with professional journalistic principles, which is unfortunately not a trend that I notice with many portals,” said Aleksić.
Olivera Milošević still believes that it was a speed error.
“I don’t think the problem is bias, because I know what kind of journalist she is and this absolutely doesn’t look like her. That has never been her way of reporting and working. I agree that she could have waited to have a second and third side,” Milošević said, adding that this is an important topic for the local community.
In this case too, the Commission unanimously decided that the Code was violated in the parts relating to the truthfulness of reporting, the responsibility of journalists, respect for and protection of privacy, and treatment of sources.
Rešetka violated the Code in two texts from 2024
Ljubiša Stanković filed a complaint against the Rešetka portal for reporting on the court proceedings against him, his political activities and alleged damage to the republican budget. He submitted seven articles to the Press Council, claiming that they presented him as a convicted “smuggler” before the verdict was handed down and that he was accused of embezzlement, political trafficking, influence over the court and pressure on journalists.
Rešetka stated that it reported in the public interest, based on court and other relevant sources, that it distinguished the stages of the proceedings, and that possible individual inaccuracies did not mean that the entire reporting was contrary to the Code.
The members of the Commission agreed that there is a public interest in reporting on criminal proceedings against public officials, but they singled out the incorrect use of the term “embezzlement” and the failure to publish responses as a problem.
Milena Vasić pointed out several layers of problems related to the controversial texts.
“There is a need to report on all criminal proceedings against public officials, and I certainly wouldn’t say it’s a campaign. I only have two issues – the issue of ’embezzlement’ and the failure to publish the answers,” said Vasić.
Filip Švarm stated that he believes it was a journalist’s mistake.
“I’m not sure about this embezzlement. I think the journalist didn’t know what he wrote and it wasn’t intentional,” he said.
Chairwoman Jelena Petković pointed out that the texts from 2026 show progress in the reporting method and that the Code was not violated in those texts.
The Commission unanimously decided that two articles from 2024 violated the provisions of the Code relating to the truthfulness of reporting, treatment of sources, and responsibility of journalists, while five articles published in 2026 did not contain any violations.
Prokuplje Press Violated the Code by Writing About the Work of the EHO Organization
Snežana Ilić, legal representative of the NGO EHO from Prokuplje, complained about two articles by the Prokuplje press portal in which the organization was presented as a partner of the local government that did not want to disclose how much money it received for the clean-up operation. She stated that EHO’s independent activity, carried out as part of the Young Researchers of Serbia project, was wrongly presented as a joint project with the City, while the title unfoundedly suggests concealment of financial data.
Editor Biljana Roganović responded that the first text was based on the official announcement of the City of Prokuplje, that relevant stakeholders were contacted and that EHO’s response was published in full. She emphasized that the organization’s relationship with local authorities is a topic of public interest.
Nadežda Budimović assessed that the portal added a value and political framework by conveying information, even though the action was part of the “Volunteers for Serbia” project.
Dušan Aleksić called the texts “a typical example of malicious framing” and that the incident boils down to the journalist’s stance on something, which, he said, is unacceptable.
The Commission unanimously decided that Prokuplje Press violated the provisions of the Code relating to the truthfulness of reporting and the responsibility of journalists in both texts.