Media freedom in Serbia

Censorship in Serbia is prohibited by the Constitution. Freedom of expression and of information are protected by international and national law, even if the guarantees enshrined in the laws are not coherently implemented. Instances of censorship and self-censorship are still reported in the country.
Serbia is deemed "partly free" by Freedom House and ranks 93rd out of 180 countries in the 2020 Press Freedom Index report compiled by Reporters Without Borders, declining its ranking by three if compared to 2019, fourteen if compared to 2018 and 24 places if compared to 2017. In 2018, International Research &amp; Exchanges Board described the situation in the media in Serbia as the worst in recent history, and that Media Sustainability Index dropped because the most polarized media in almost 20 years, an increase in fake news and editorial pressure on media.
Within the framework of negotiations with the European Union, the EU has requested that Serbia improve and guarantee freedom of expression and of the press. 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."
Legislative framework.
Serbia is part of the European Convention on Human Rights and of the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, both imposing obligations to protect freedom of expression and information.
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.
It is a Constitutional right, in Serbia, to freely establish media without prior authorization. Licenses, required for TV and radio stations, are granted by an independent body, the Republic Broadcasting Agency (RBA). Censorship is prohibited by the Constitution.
The legislative framework on the media in Serbia includes a Law on Public Information, a Law on Broadcasting, a Law on Free Access to Information of Public Importance and a Law on Elections of the Members of the Parliament (regulating electoral coverage). The Criminal Code still stipulates fines for insult, even after the abolishment of criminal defamation provisions. In 2013 the Criminal Code was amended to include a specific reference, in art.138(3), to the endangerment of "persons discharging duties of public importance in the area of public information related to his/her duties", which official sources confirmed was meant to include journalists. Statistics about prosecutions in 2014 show that 10 cases, out of 4,080 criminal offenses recorded in the year, pertained to art.138(3); of these, 2 led to indictment and one to a conviction.
Based on the 2011 Serbian Media Strategy, a new set of laws regulating media in the country has been adopted in 2014. It includes the Act on Public Information and Media, the Act on Public Service Media and the Act on Electronic Media.
The main novelties introduced by the Act on Public Information and Media included the obligation to carry out the privatization, by July 2015, of media which were still state-owned. Along with this, the Act also introduced a Media Registry conceived as a tool for transparency of media ownership. The Act also defines the possibility and procedures to co-finance media projects via public funds.
The Act on Electronic Media harmonizes Serbian national legislation with the standards included in the EU Audiovisual Media Services Directive in the fields of hate speech, accessibility of audiovisual services for people with disabilities and protection of minors.
Attacks and threats against journalists.
Serbia's Independent Association of Journalists (NUNS) reported at least 34 physical and verbal attacks against journalists in Serbia in 2015; its General Secretary Svetozar Rakovic said that "the humiliation of journalists by government officials has reached its peak this year". 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."
Between January and August 2014, Serbia had witnessed 28 cases of threats and intimidations against journalists - of which 5 physical assaults and 3 death threats - on a par with 2013 (23) and in decline from 2012 (33). The response of the authorities, according to Human Rights Watch, "was weak at best, negligent at worst".
Journalists have denounced reiterated violence and menaces, coupled with impunity for the perpetrators. Investigative journalists working on war crimes and radical religious groups have denounced how authorities downplayed the seriousness of the threats they received online. Cases of arbitrary financial and administrative inspections by official authorities, deemed of a harassing or intimidating character against critical reporting, have also been mentioned, with one specific case in Niš. High-ranking public officials have been participating in smear campaigns, including - as reported by HRW - Serbia's prime minister Aleksandar Vucic, publicly accusing journalists of acting on behalf of foreign interests.
The cases reported include:
Political interference.
The European Commission has stated in its 2012, 2013 and 2014 Progress Reports that political and financial interference has a detrimental effect on the independence of the media in Serbia.
The conditions of the market are deemed conducive to self-censorship by journalists and media outlets. Serbian media remain dependent on advertisement, of which market from 23 to 40% is constituted by state funding, whose process of allocation is deemed opaque and politicised, in the lack of an independent body tasked with the supervision of public spending on advertising. 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.
Political interference also takes more direct forms, with high-ranking politicians influencing editorial choices.
According to Christian Mihr, executive director of Reporters Without Borders, "censorship in Serbia is neither direct nor transparent, but is easy to prove." According to Mihr, "it can be seen that the authorities have very negative attitudes toward media freedom. Also, there are numerous examples of censorship and self-censorship," According to Mihr, "articles that were critical of the government were deleted from the Internet, while independent journalists were either threatened or pressured." He recalled how during the May 2014 floods some articles were taken off websites, while the government "attacked several critical reports" of the official response to the natural events.
According to Mihr, Serbian prime minister Aleksandar Vucic has proved "very sensitive to criticism, even on critical questions," as was the case with Natalija Miletic, correspondent for Deutsche Welle Radio, who questioned him in Berlin about the media situation in Serbia and about allegations that some ministers in the Serbian government had plagiarized their diplomas, and who later received threats and offensive articles on the Serbian press.
Serbia's Independent Association of Journalists (NUNS) endorsed RWB's report. According to a survey by NUNS in December 2014, 40% of 585 Serbian journalists reported being occasionally subjected to censorship, while 48% believed their colleagues occasionally self-censor their work. Another survey, by Germany's Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, from September 2014, remarked that more than 90% of journalists polled said both censorship and self-censorship are present in the Serbian media; 73% agreed that Serbian media lack objectivity, and 95% that reporting is rarely critical.
In 2017, Freedom House reported that Serbia posted one of the largest single-year declines in press freedom among all the countries and territories. Also, they emphasized that Vučić had sought to squeeze critical media out of the market and discredit the few journalists with the funds and fortitude to keep working. According to Amnesty International report, freedom of independent media has been severely curtailed since the election of Vučić as Prime Minister and interference in the media has intensified and become personalized through public attacks on journalists critical of the government.
Five Serbian journalists’ and media associations described in a joint report the incident which took place on 19 October 2018 when Aleksandar Vučić, president of Serbia first called a "RTS" broadcaster by her name and “insulted and humiliated her”, and then turned to "N1" journalist who had asked him not to put pressure on colleagues from the RTS. In 2018, International Research &amp; Exchanges Board described the situation in the media in Serbia as the worst in recent history. They, also, pointed out that the judiciary responds promptly only in cases in which the media allegedly violates the rights of authorities and ruling parties. The increased government control of the media comes as Serbian journalists face more political pressure and intimidation, in 2018 "the Independent Association of Serbian Journalists" recorded the highest number of attacks against journalists in decade. 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. Many of them were about alleged attacks on Vućić and attempts of coups, as well as messages of support to him by Vladimir Putin. 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.
Radio Television of Vojvodina case.
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. 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.
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, 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.
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. With support from Independent Journalist Association of Vojvodina and Vojvodinian Civic Center, that group of journalists formed a new movement called “Support RTV”. They rejected to work under pressure and organized four street protests that were supported by dozens of people. On 23 May, there was a demonstration in support of journalists.
During summer 2016, 22 employees got fired, four were transferred to Radio Novi Sad (part of RTV system) and three journalists quit. Most of the popular and quality shows have never turned back after the summer pause.
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.
2017 presidential election and inauguration ceremony.
The "Associated Press" and Reporters Without Borders reported that Aleksandar Vučić, the candidate of the governing coalition, had ten times more airtime on national broadcasters than all other candidates combined and that mainstream media under Vučić's control have been demonizing most of the opposition presidential candidates, without giving them the opportunity to respond. Non-governmental organizations involved in election observation, "CRTA" and "Bureau for Social Research", emphasized that the presence of Aleksandar Vučić in newspaper and the electronic media during presidential campaign was disproportionate, adding that media have lost their critical roleand that they have become a means of political propaganda.
The OSCE Report explains that general reluctance of media to report critically on or to challenge the governing authorities, significantly reduced the amount of impartial information available to voters. Furthermore, the Report states that all private national television channels displayed preferential treatment towards him in their news programs. They also mentioned that the government used public resources to support Vucic. European Commission stated in the Serbia 2018 Report that "Regulatory Body for Electronic Media" failed to address imbalances in media coverage of the presidential campaign.
One day before the beginning of the election silence prior to the election, seven major newspapers have covered their entire front pages with adverts for Vučić. Slaviša Lekić, president of the "Independent Journalist Association of Serbia" said: “With this, Aleksandar Vučić clearly demonstrated that he can control over everything in this country”. 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. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch reported harassment and physical assaults on journalists during the presidential inauguration ceremony, after Vučić win election.
Smear campaigns.
A share of the Serbian media marked is occupied by government-aligned tabloids and TV ("Informer", "Kurir", e-Novine, Pink TV), which frequently engage in smear campaigns against targets, both domestically and abroad. These often also feature journalists, discrediting them as traitors, informers, thieves, and prostitutes.
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. There are allegations that similar practice was also used by the Democratic Party-led coalition. Governments orient tabloids' editorial line through advertising grants. Their use has been made more aggressive under Serbian Progressive Party governments.
Lawsuits and defamation.
Defamation is decriminalised since 2012. Insult is still a criminal offense, but not punishable by prison - although journalists can be imprisoned if unable to pay the associated harsh fines.
Lawsuits for defamation - keeping journalists from working and threatening them with huge amounts for compensation - are deemed a common way to push journalists to practice self-censorship, as recognised by NUNS. 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.
Fines handed down by courts to journalists upon claims of slander by politicians significantly decreased in 2014, thanks to a better understanding of the law by the courts. Yet, inconsistencies remain, as judges often ignore the norm saying that journalists cannot be punished for publishing or paraphrasing official government statements.
Cyber-attacks.
Reports have emerged of cyber-attacks against online media in Serbia in 2014. A specialised police unit for high tech crimes was established in 2006 in the General Prosecutor's Office, tasked to proceed to investigate after police referral, victims' referral, or autonomously upon media reports.
Internet censorship and surveillance.
There are no government restrictions on access to the Internet, e-mail, or Internet chat rooms. There are isolated reports that the government monitors e-mail. Individuals and groups are able to engage in the peaceful expression of views via the Internet, including by e-mail.
The constitution prohibits arbitrary interference with privacy, family, home, or correspondence. While the law requires the Ministry of Interior to obtain a court order before monitoring potential criminal activity and police to obtain a warrant before entering property except to save persons or possessions, police occasionally fail to respect these laws. Most observers believe authorities selectively monitor communications, eavesdrop on conversations, and read mail and e-mail. Human rights leaders also believe that authorities monitor their communications.
The 2010 Law on Electronic Communications obliges telecommunications operators to retain for one year data on the source and destination of a communication; the beginning, duration, and end of a communication; the type of communication; terminal equipment identification; and the location of the customer's mobile terminal equipment. While these data can be accessed by intelligence agencies without court permission, a court order is required to access the contents of these communications. In 2013 the Constitutional Court of Serbia ruled that a court approval is necessary also for data collection.
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. 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.
Transparency of media ownership.
Transparency of media ownership refers to the public availability of accurate, comprehensive and up-to-date information about media ownership structures. A legal regime guaranteeing transparency of media ownership makes possible for the public as well as for media authorities to find out who effectively owns, controls and influences the media as well as media influence on political parties or state bodies.
In Serbia media ownership is not sufficiently transparent. The lack of transparency is considered one of the main problem affecting the Serbian media system and even a characteristic of it. In 2011, the Anti-Corruption Council (ACC) indicated that the real owners of 9 of 11 commercial broadcasters were not known to the public. 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. The lack of media ownership transparency in Serbia is due to the collusion between the government and the regulator. Also, the legislation on media ownership transparency is controversial and incoherent as pieces of legislation were passed at different times. Furthermore, existing regulation on the identification of owners are non-existent, incomplete, non-compulsory or disregarded. As a consequence, poor and inadequate regulations enable media owners to remain hidden for a long time. Also, they do not address concerning practices, such as the one making possible the legalisation of shady capital through the media or the hiding of domestic ownership patterns through complex networks of connected foreign companies and they are not effective in preventing the infiltration of business interests in the media sector.
Existing transparency rules requires the disclosure of only minimal information. For instance, media owners are required to register only as natural and legal persons, not as individuals behind legal persons. Also, the financial flows and the source of investment are not subject to checks. The regulatory authority does not check the compliance with the rules regulating foreign organisations which operate in the media field in other countries. In 2009 an effort was pursued to regulate transparency of ownership and ownership concentration in a separate and specific law. However, the attempt failed due to the opposition by the Media Association, an association gathering the owners of print media that pressured the government to stop the adoption of the law. A new attempt to improve the regulation of ownership and market concentration in the field of media was initiated in 2011, with the drafting of the new Media Strategy. The Strategy's aims was to improve the legislation on media transparency, including by introducing the obligation to disclose information on natural and legal persons involved in the media ownership structure, on the nature and scope of their shares, the names of the ultimate owners of capital, information on their interests and shares in other media outlets and other economic enterprises, as well as on other persons having a significant degree of control or influence over a given media and data on state aid to media outlets. The new media law, the Law on Public information and Media, introduced in August 2014, regulates ownership transparency and provides that all media have to register to the Media Register, which is publicly accessible. However, according to some experts, the new law does not solve the problems connected to non-transparent ownership, including, for instance, the persisting problem that leading Serbian media outlets are hidden through a complicated networks of connected companies and individuals.
According to the Anti-Corruption Council Report on Media ownership published in 2015, out of 50 leading media outlets examined in the report, 27 have non-transparent ownership, which is often connected either to family members or offshore companies (in particular in Cyprus and the British Virgin Islands). The report identified non-transparency of media ownership among the major systemic problems that have "paralyzed the system of public information in Serbia for years". Cases of opaque ownership abounds and involves even renowned media outlets, such as the daily Politika, B92, Prva and many others. 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. B92 and Prva are other striking examples on opaque ownership leading to Cyprus through a series of companies operating in Greece and Bulgaria. 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. Moreover, in examining the media register run by the Serbian Business Registers Agency (SBRA), the Council found that, due to the weaknesses of the legislative framework, the register did not represent the real state of affairs of the Serbian media landscape. The council also noted that the competent Minister, did not monitor the SBRA and the procedures for media registration. According to the report, public data made available by the Regulatory Body for Electronic Media (RBEM) and by the SBRA and contradictory and inconsistent.
The Council elaborated more than 20 recommendations for the Government of Serbia aiming at overcoming the shortcomings identified and at improving the Serbian media system. Some of the recommendations directly concerned media ownership transparency. 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.
Concentration of media ownership.
Legal framework.
Limitations to the concentration of media ownership in Serbia are seth forth by the “Act on Public Information and the Media” and by the “Electronic Media Act”, both adopted in 2014.
In order to protect media pluralism in the print and audiovisual sectors, the Act on Public Information and the Media prohibits merges of newspapers publishers that “exceeds 50% of the actual circulation of daily newspapers in the territory of the Republic of Serbia”. For the audiovisual media sector, this threshold is set to 35% of all listener/viewer ratings.
Merges are also prohibited between publishers of newspapers with a circulation exceeding 50’000 copies a year and audiovisual media.
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.
Media concentration in practice.
Widespread state ownership, which in Serbia is regarded as a legacy of the previous media system, underwent a significant decrease in the period 2003–2007.
State-ownership in the media sector was meant to be completely dismissed through the privatization process concluded in 2015 but the final results of the same are considered controversial.
According to a 2014 study, the number of state-owned media at the time was publicly unknown, with estimates suggesting about 100 media, or 10% being state-owned including prominent ones such as news agency Tanjug, dailies "Večernje Novosti", "Politika" and "Dnevnik".
The Media Sustainability Index published by IREX in 2017 highlights concerns about concentration of media ownership in the country, warning that the different regulations applied to electronic and print media may constitute a significant risk-factor and stressing that both the Agency for Protection of Competition and the Regulatory Body for Electronic Media have so far failed to properly address media concentration.
In the print media sector, ownership concentration remains a major issue, particularly in the cases concerning the dailies Politika and Večernje Novosti.
According to recent analyses, the privatization process carried out in 2015 seems to have favoured an increase in concentration of media ownership. In particular, local businessman Radoica Milosavljević operating in the Serbian town of Kruševac has acquired eight media companies operating at the local level, namely Radio Television Pančevo, Radio Television Kruševac, Radio Television Kragujevac, Radio Television Caribrod, Radio Television Brus, Požega TV, Pirot TV and the Novi Kneževac Information Centre.