Press Council: Nova, Alo, Informer, Novosti, and Bačkotopolski Portal Violated the Code, 021.rs and Južne vesti Had No Violations

(Source: NUNS) The Press Council’s Complaints Commission reviewed a total of 17 complaints sent to the Council in the previous period, during a session held last night at the UNS Press Center. It was decided that the portal Alo.rs violated the Serbian Journalists’ Code of Ethics in five articles, Informer.rs in three, and Novosti.rs in two. Violations were also recorded for Nova.rs and Bačkotopolski, while it was determined that Novi Sad’s 021.rs and Niš’s Južne vesti did not breach the Code.

Nova.rs should have requested a comment from Nenad Stefanović

The first complaint discussed was submitted by the Forum of Lawyers of Serbia regarding a total of eleven articles published on Nova.rs between December 1, 2023, and January 19, 2025. The complaint stated that the portal had been violating the Code for over a year in its reporting on the actions of the Higher Public Prosecutor’s Office in Belgrade and Chief Public Prosecutor Nenad Stefanović. They argued that Nova.rs’s reporting was biased and inaccurate, failing to cover events of public interest related to Stefanović. The complaint also stated that although Stefanović is a public official, he should not be subjected to “unjustified, unacceptable and offensive criticism and the use of false and unverified characterizations about his person,” and that he was not contacted to verify the information. Nova.rs did not respond to the complaint.

The discussion on this complaint was opened by Filip Švarm from the Association of Media, who said that a formal violation of the Code existed but emphasized that Stefanović typically refuses to give statements. “He comes, reads what he has to, and leaves. We from independent media have long since stopped sending him questions because he never responds,” Švarm said, adding that considering all of this, he still did not see a Code violation. Public representative Ana Martinoli said that it is bad practice not to seek responses and that the lack of response is not a valid reason not to ask. Tamara Skrozza from the Independent Journalists’ Association of Serbia, public representative Rodoljub Šabić, and Nadežda Budimović from Lokal Press all agreed that the Nova.rs editorial team should have sought a comment from the other side. The Complaints Commission, after the discussion, voted by majority that Nova.rs violated the Serbian Journalists’ Code of Ethics in terms of the obligation to consult multiple sources when reporting.

Igor Bandović vs. Alo.rs

Igor Bandović filed a complaint against Alo.rs over an article published on December 21 of last year titled “HERE’S WHO’S BEHIND THE STUDENT PROTESTS – Vučić was right – huge foreign funds invested in this black NGO trio.” The article stated that Bandović was part of a “black trio” of NGO leaders who “manipulate students like puppets,” funded from abroad, with the goal of “toppling the state.” In his complaint, Bandović claimed that the article presented unverified allegations about individuals, appeared to be influenced by political agendas, and contained insinuations and unverified information meant to damage his reputation. In its response, Alo disputed the complaint’s claims. The outlet argued that Bandović had not provided evidence for his claims, that none of the information in the article was offensive, and that the author had not used “any dishonest methods with the intent to belittle the complainant.”

Tamara Skrozza stated that this is one in a series of dangerous articles in pro-government media. “I think it’s important that people targeted by tabloids file complaints with the Press Council, simply so these cases remain part of the anthology of media disgrace,” Skrozza said.

Rodoljub Šabić, Nadežda Budimović, and Jelka Jovanović, who represents the Media Association, agreed that the disputed article violated the Code multiple times. The Complaints Commission unanimously decided that the Code was breached in the parts relating to the truthfulness of reporting, namely the journalist’s obligation to distinguish between facts and speculation, the prohibition of publishing unfounded accusations, and the obligation to seek comment from the so-called “other side.”

It is unacceptable to exert pressure through the media. Sanja Kojić and Ildiko Menđan Pletikosić filed a complaint against the portal Backotopolski.net over a Facebook post dated January 24, in which they were labeled as organizers of the road blockades in Bačka Topola. The untitled post, among other things, stated: “Professors (Sanja Kojić and Ildiko Menđan Pletikosić) are using the school to promote their personal political views and support everything that is against the current government.” In her complaint, Kojić wrote that the post contains a series of false claims about her alleged political influence on students and her role in organizing protests. The Press Council’s general secretary, Gordana Novaković, noted that it was not possible to request a response from the portal because emails bounced back and the contact form on the site did not work. Olivera Milošević, a representative of the Journalists’ Association of Serbia, pointed out that teachers across Serbia are experiencing pressure from all sides. “It’s clear that not every situation can come before the Commission, but I think it would be good to take this as an example and send a message to the public that exerting pressure—and replicating it in the media—is unacceptable,” said Milošević. The Complaints Commission unanimously decided that the Backotopolski.net portal violated the Code in the parts concerning the truthfulness of reporting, namely the obligation of journalists to report accurately and impartially, to distinguish between speculation and facts, and the prohibition of publishing unfounded accusations. The Code was also violated in terms of the ban on discrimination and the obligation to consult multiple sources.

Južne vesti did not mention Srđan Nonić in its report. Srđan Nonić filed a complaint about an article published on the Južne vesti portal on January 24, titled “They’re not on strike, but they’re not at work either – public sector officials and workers from Niš take the train to Jagodina.” He was not mentioned in the article itself, but, as he noted in his complaint, his photograph was published while he was speaking with Niš mayor Dragoslav Pavlović to arrange an interview. He explained that he published the interview on the Facebook page of the Niš Initiative and that he also reported that day from a student protest in Niš. He did not contact the portal for a response because, as he claimed, his previous responses had been ignored. In their response to the complaint, Južne vesti stated that the complainant’s description of the event was not accurate. “The photo is one of many in the gallery from the event. It shows the mayor of Niš,” the response stated. Public representative Sanja Pavlović observed that Nonić was not mentioned in the text nor named in the caption. “Everything Južne vesti did while reporting on the event was completely legitimate. After all, they were also present, and he could have photographed them for his outlet as well,” added Nadežda Budimović. The Commission members decided that the Code was not violated in this case.

The Youth Initiative for Human Rights filed a complaint concerning two articles published on January 7 on the Alo.rs portal. The articles were titled “EXCLUSIVE – MILA PAJIĆ ON THE VERGE OF A NERVOUS BREAKDOWN: Secretly receiving treatment in a psychiatric facility” and “FROM SCHOOL BULLY TO PROTEST LEADER: Belated psychiatric treatment of Mila Pajić.” According to the complaint, the first article claimed that Pajić was “known for her unstable behavior and aggressive outbursts,” that she was in a “severely deteriorated mental state,” that she was “secretly receiving treatment at a prestigious private psychiatric clinic,” and that the Youth Initiative for Human Rights was paying for her treatment. The second article was written in the same tone. The Initiative argued that Alo violated the obligation to report truthfully and accurately, that the false reporting damaged Pajić’s dignity and privacy, and that neither Pajić nor their organization had been contacted. In its response, Alo claimed that the Initiative was not authorized to file a complaint, as it is a human rights organization, and argued that the Press Council should reject the complaint. However, general secretary Gordana Novaković explained that it was permissible since Pajić had given authorization to the organization, and that representation before the Council need not be done by a lawyer. Tamara Skrozza pointed out that a series of articles had been published about Mila Pajić. “This young woman has endured an unprecedented media lynching since the start of the protests. These are serial publications, and reading them I kept worrying about her,” Skrozza said, adding that this is part of a media campaign. Olivera Milošević from the Journalists’ Association of Serbia added that both texts were “devoid of any evidence or humanity” and could be described as malicious. Rodoljub Šabić noted that the texts contain discrimination based on political grounds. The Commission unanimously decided that the Code had been violated in sections concerning the obligation to report truthfully and impartially, the prohibition of publishing unfounded accusations, the ban on discrimination, and the obligation to protect dignity and privacy. The obligation to consult multiple sources and the ban on hate speech were also breached.

Lazar and Luka Stojaković filed six complaints against the portals Alo, Informer, and Novosti over articles published on January 2, titled: “CROATS CAME TO FON TO DESTABILIZE SERBIA! Here’s the proof, black on white, how our neighbors are appointing leaders of the ‘student’ protest!”, “Leaders of FON blockade in Belgrade are Croatian citizens! Yet another proof of strong Croatian influence in attempts to destabilize Serbia!” and “CROATS LEADERS OF BLOCKADES AT FON IN BELGRADE: Another confirmation of strong Croatian involvement in destabilizing Serbia.” All texts were nearly identical in content, and the Stojaković brothers were labeled as leaders of the student blockades at the Faculty of Organizational Sciences in Belgrade. The texts highlighted their Croatian citizenship as “proof of strong Croatian influence in current attempts to destabilize the situation in Serbia.” Their complaints stated that the articles were false and an attempt to discredit them, pointing out that the student protests had no leaders, as all decisions were made by direct vote. They also noted that Alo had unlawfully published photos of their passports and did not contact them regarding the claims. In the meantime, all sites removed the passport photos, and Novosti even removed the students’ names. At the time the complaints were submitted, only Alo still displayed personal document images. Alo.rs responded by stating that it was neither “dishonorable nor offensive to be Croatian or to protest against Serbian institutions,” and claimed the plaintiffs failed to recognize a “stylistic figure of metonymy.” Their response also claimed the information was “properly verified” and that journalists are entitled to protect their sources. They further argued that the complainants failed to provide evidence to disprove the published information. Novosti provided a similar response, saying the brothers were not accused of crimes, that their dignity had not been harmed, and that the article’s purpose was to inform, not to demean. Informer did not respond. Jelena Petković from the Journalists’ Association of Serbia stated that these media outlets not only violated the Code but also the law. “This is everything that should never appear on the pages of a media outlet… The responses are inappropriate and insulting to the students who were targeted, and insulting to the Press Council itself,” said Petković. The Commission unanimously concluded that all three media outlets had violated the Code concerning the obligation to report truthfully and impartially, to distinguish between facts and assumptions, and to create headlines that correspond to the article’s content. Violations also included journalistic responsibility to act in the public interest, the ban on discrimination, and respect for human dignity and privacy.

The organization Women in Black submitted a complaint on behalf of Vladimir Jevtić against the Alo.rs portal for an article titled “SERBIA MUST STAND – Teacher Vladimir Jevtić from Bajina Bašta: Consistent in his fight against Serbia,” published on January 23. The article claims that Jevtić, a high school teacher in Bajina Bašta, is “among the ranks of autochauvinist activists who for years have promoted the idea of the criminal nature of the Serbian people,” and that he collaborates with NGOs from Bosnia and Herzegovina to promote the notion of genocide in Srebrenica. The complaint stated that Jevtić was maliciously portrayed as a “hater of Serbia” allegedly paid by foreign organizations and that he abuses his position to indoctrinate students. “The only truthful statement in the article is that Jevtić is an activist in the Women in Black network, and his activity is purely on a volunteer basis,” the complaint read. Alo responded that Women in Black were not authorized to file the complaint on Jevtić’s behalf, although his signed authorization was included. They also claimed that the article did not infringe on the rights of a group, but possibly just an individual, and therefore the Council should reject the complaint. Ana Martinoli pointed out that the texts circulating in the media are full of hatred towards other nations and states. “What especially caught my attention is that the article states Jevtić attended commemorative events in Srebrenica and Potočari. I would like to remind everyone that President Aleksandar Vučić himself attended a commemorative event in Srebrenica in 2015, and I don’t see how that could be considered controversial,” said Martinoli. The Commission also unanimously decided that Alo violated the Code in this case, particularly regarding the obligation of journalists to report truthfully and impartially, to distinguish between facts and assumptions, and the prohibition of publishing unfounded accusations. The Code was also violated in terms of prohibited editorial influence, discrimination, and the obligation to consult multiple sources, i.e., the “other side.”

Author: Ivana Kragulj