Media freedom in Serbia
According to Christian Mihr of Reporters Without Borders, "as a candidate country [Serbia] must seriously understand the importance of the independence of journalists and the need for freedom of the media.
The Constitution of Serbia guarantees freedom of expression (including freedom of speech and press) and allows for its restriction only "to protect the rights and reputation of others, to uphold the authority and objectivity of the courts and to protect public health, morals of a democratic society and national security of the Republic of Serbia" - as in compliance with the standards set by the European Convention on Human Rights.
While the law does not include a specific provision on hate speech, it is a criminal offense in Serbia to "incite" national, racial, or religious intolerance.
In June 2011 the Constitutional Court banned the extreme right-wing organization Nacionalni Stroj (National Front) for promoting racist hate speech.
OSCE media advisor Miroslav Jankovic reported in December 2015 that "At least three journalists are under permanent police protection in Serbia, which speaks for itself that the institutions had yet to face their past.
Investigative journalists working on war crimes and radical religious groups have denounced how authorities downplayed the seriousness of the threats they received online.
[24] Free media reliance on state-funded advertisements thus makes them prone to a lack of critical scrutiny of governmental actions, for fear of losing precious sources of revenues.
Also, there are numerous examples of censorship and self-censorship,"[6] According to Mihr, "articles that were critical of the government were deleted from the Internet, while independent journalists were either threatened or pressured."
[31] According to Serbian investigative journalism portal Crime and Corruption Reporting Network, more than 700 fake news were published on the front pages of pro-government tabloids during 2018.
[33] The best-selling newspaper in Serbia is the pro-government tabloid Informer, which most often presents Vučić as a powerful person under constant attack, and also has anti-European content and pro-war rhetoric.
[34][35][36] Parliamentary elections in Serbia in April 2016 caused a shift in power in Vojvodina and Serbian Progressive Party won a majority like it already had on a national level.
[44] One week later, when the results were revealed, Managing Board of public broadcasting service Radio Television of Vojvodina (RTV) decided to release program director Slobodan Arezina.
[45] Concerned that those kind of personal changes could undermine the hard-earned reputation, more than 40 journalists and editors signed an open letter to public,[46] defending the principles and trying to preserve an atmosphere where they will be able to continue their work free from political pressures.
Few days later, general director and editor-in-chief resigned and new acting management decided to dismiss 14 editors and journalists, accusing them of not being objective and not fulfilling role as a public service.
[47] Over 100 journalists, editors and other employees have signed new open letter criticising the dismissals and asking the new board of directors to resign and to restore free media at RTV.
The result of dismissing the whole team of editors and anchors as well as changes in editorial contents is decline in viewership, but also increasing number of pro-government stories.
For example, monitoring made by Novosadska novinarska škola shows that number of reports about government activities has been doubled (from 16 to 33%), genre diversity decreased from 49% to 30% and investigative and analytic stories, based on journalist initiative, make only 10 percent of the news program.
[59] He was the subject of criticism and satire for the appearance of a show on Happy TV in the last days of the campaign, with guests including his parents, in which he offered assistance in front of the camera to a man who allegedly fainted.
[60][61][62] Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch reported harassment and physical assaults on journalists during the presidential inauguration ceremony, after Vučić win election.
[9]: 59 [64] The strategic use of pro-governmental media as a means of political confrontation was introduced during the Slobodan Milošević regime and especially during the period when Aleksandar Vučić was the minister of information.
Statistics from 2011 show how 40% of the 242 civil defamation lawsuits against journalists and media outlets were filed by public officials, celebrities, powerful business leaders, city mayors, members of parliament, and ministers.
[14] Since Serbian Progressive Party came to power, Serbia has seen a surge of internet trolls and pages on social networks praising the government and attacking its critics, free media and the opposition in general.
[84] That includes a handful of dedicated employees run fake accounts, but also the Facebook page associated with a Serbian franchise of the far-right Breitbart News website.
The report of the ACC stated that real owners were hiding with the aim of concealing specific interests which were driving forces acting behind these media outlets.
[89] In the case of Politika, which is the oldest daily paper in the country, 50% of its share are owned by the Russian company "OOO East Media Group", the owner of which is unknown.
[89] Also, the Council found that in the period examined (2011–14) there was not any willingness of political parties to limit their influence over media ownership structures, in particular in the editorial policy, where control is exerted both formally and informally.
In particular, the Council called the ministry in charge of information, in cooperation with SBRA and RBEM, to work to set up an efficient, comprehensive and transparent register of media ownership structures, together with the obligation to disclose beneficial owners based offshore.
Also, the Council recommended to improve the effectiveness of the media register as well as the systems that ensure its updating and the legal oversight of registration and data entry.
[11] The same act established, with Article 39, the obligation to include in the Media registry information about any natural and legal persons who directly or indirectly have more than 5% share in publishing companies.
[92] In the print media sector, ownership concentration remains a major issue, particularly in the cases concerning the dailies Politika and Večernje Novosti.
