Press Council: Portals 24/7, Rikošet and Alo Violated the Code, Danas and Nova Did Not
(Source: NUNS) Portals 24/7, Rikošet and Alo violated the Journalists’ Code, while Danas and Nova.rs portals did not, the Complaints Commission of the Press Council decided at yesterday’s session held at the Press Center of the Association of Journalists of Serbia.
Portal 24/7 Violated Minor’s Privacy
The Commission first considered a complaint by Aleksandar Pančić against the 24/7 portal over
an article in which his minor son was portrayed as a bully who insulted and spat at activists of the Serbian Progressive Party. Pančić had previously filed complaints for the same reason against the Informer.rs and Alo.rs portals, which the Commission considered at its July session. The
complaint against 24/7 was not on the agenda at that time because mediation proceedings were underway, but they were unsuccessful.
Pančić stated in his complaint that the incident was preceded by insults and provocation directed at his son, while the minor was described in the article as a “hater of Serbia.” He also pointed out that the minor’s first and last name, photograph, place of origin, and footage of the verbal altercation without identity protection had been published, thereby violating his privacy and right to protection. According to the complaint, the minor received multiple threats after the article was published.
Pančić requested that the portal remove the article and video footage and publish an apology. The editorial office removed the disputed content but did not publish an apology.
As with other media outlets at the previous session, the Commission unanimously decided that the 24/7 portal had violated provisions of the Code concerning respect for dignity and protection of privacy.
Forum of Serbian Lawyers Against the Danas and Nova.rs Portals
The Forum of Serbian Lawyers, with the consent of Belgrade Higher Public Prosecutor Nenad
Stefanović, filed complaints concerning reporting by the Danas.rs and Nova.rs portals about the circumstances in which a suspect in a murder that occurred on May 12 at the “27” restaurant in Senjak was questioned.
Danas reported in its first article that the Chief Public Prosecutor of the Higher Public Prosecutor’s Office in Belgrade, Nenad Stefanović, had requested that the suspect be questioned in his office, without the presence of prison guards, which the article characterized as unlawful. In a second article, the case was commented on by retired public prosecutor Jasmina Paunović and attorney Boško Ristić.
The complainant argued that the articles were based on unverified information and anonymous sources, that they were one-sided and sensationalist, and that they misled the public and undermined trust in the judiciary.
“The challenged article, by its content, does not constitute informing the public about an event of public interest, but rather the creation of a negative emotion toward the Chief Public Prosecutor of the Higher Public Prosecutor’s Office in Belgrade and the Minister of Justice,” the complaint stated.
Danas journalists Aleksandar Roknić and Zorica Miladinović rejected the claims made by the Forum of Serbian Lawyers. They stressed that the articles about the questioning of the murder suspect were published in the public interest, based on information verified with multiple sources, including the Higher Public Prosecutor’s Office and the Ministry of Justice. They also stated that the position of the other side had been included, that claims about possible
unlawful conduct had been presented conditionally, and that the anonymity of sources does not mean that the information was unverified.
In the disputed article, Nova.rs referred to the Danas article and stated that Public Prosecutor Nenad Stefanović had previously questioned suspects without the presence of prison guards, and that such cases are usually followed by a “turning point” in the investigation.
The complaint against Nova.rs stated that the article was based on unverified information and anonymous sources, omitted relevant facts, and led readers to the conclusion that the lifting of the detention of the wife of one of the suspects was a consequence of his conversation with Stefanović.
“The author consciously and deliberately avoids informing the public of the legal fact that detention is lifted by a court, not by the public prosecutor’s office,” the complaint stated.
Commenting on the complaint against Nova.rs, Commission member Milena Vasić said that she
believed the Code had not been violated and that there was a public interest “in publishing everything that was published,” while Zlatko Čobović pointed out that the prosecutor had not denied any of the published claims.
Speaking about the complaints against Danas, Jelena Petković assessed that the articles
were professionally written and that questions had also been put to the other side.
“Perhaps they failed to respond to the comments in a better way, but as far as the article itself is concerned, I do not see a violation of the Code here,” Petković said.
The Commission unanimously decided in both cases that the Code had not been violated.
Publishing Footage of a Murder Most Gravely Violates the Victim’s Dignity
Commission member Sanja Pavlović filed a complaint against the Rikošet portal over an article and accompanying Instagram post in which footage of the murder of a woman near Bor was shown. The complaint stated that publishing the final moments of her life and detailed descriptions of the crime constituted the most serious violation of the victim’s dignity and privacy, as well as of the provisions of the Code concerning editorial responsibility and the protection of crime victims.
Pavlović said that a warning that the disturbing footage should be viewed “at one’s own risk” did not justify its publication but rather showed that the editorial office was aware of the nature of the content. According to her, such reporting exposes the victim’s family to additional trauma, may retraumatize other victims of violence, and contributes to the normalization and “reality-show-ification” of violence against women, turning human suffering into content designed to attract views and generate profit.
The editorial office has since removed the disputed content from the portal and Instagram.
Jelena Petković welcomed the editorial office’s decision to remove the content, but said it was hypocritical to publish disturbing footage on social media with a warning.
“When you publish something on social media, you are aware that there is a high chance the algorithm will push it to a very young audience and that you cannot protect them from that content. Is it appropriate to tell a young teenager to watch it at their own risk?” Petković said.
Milena Vasić said that “there is no justification for why something like this should be published.”
After a brief discussion, the Commission unanimously decided that the provisions of the Code concerning journalists’ responsibility, respect for dignity, and respect for and protection of privacy had been violated.
Alo Again Published a Report About a 14 Year Old Tragedy
The Complaints Commission decided that the Alo.rs portal had again violated the Code by
publishing a report about a tragedy that occurred 14 years ago.
Žaklina Stanojević, the mother of a child who died in a fire in 2012, filed a complaint with the Press Council because the Alo portal republished a report about the family tragedy on August 9, 2026. The article included details of the child’s death, as well as information about the family’s circumstances.
The complainant believed that republishing a tragedy from 14 years ago was not in the public interest and that it violated her family’s privacy and the dignity of the deceased child. She stated that the article caused the surviving family members great emotional pain and severe retraumatization.
Commission member Olivera Milošević expressed concern “that in the future this could
become some kind of morbid practice.”
“In the absence of ‘fresh blood,’ horror, tragedies, accidents and human suffering, they go back somewhere 14 years, dig up some terrible accident and publish it as if it were current,” Milošević said. She added that she had checked whether there had been other tragedies on the day the article was published, but had not found any such reports.
“There was not enough material that day to frighten the public, to present horrors. I am genuinely afraid that this could become a practice,” she said.
Sanja Pavlović added that such cases are not uncommon.
The Commission unanimously decided that the provisions of the Code concerning the truthfulness of reporting, respect for dignity, and respect for and protection of privacy had been violated.
Author: I.K.