In 2000, the Serbian media system began a slow and, as of today, unfinished transformation. This transformation included several main elements: 1) withdrawal of the state from media ownership, 2) transformation of state television into a public media service, 3) formation of an independent regulator in the field of electronic media, 4) introduction of measures that encourage media pluralism and diversity of content and 5) providing conditions for the realization of freedom of expression.

The adoption of media laws that prescribed these elements was accompanied by simultaneous processes that made fulfilling these goals impossible. The state reluctantly relinquished its role as a media owner and media regulator. The need to exert political influence in the media sphere, along with a low level of journalistic professionalism and impoverishment of the media market, led to non-transparent, clientelistic relations between government and the media. Media capture by the state has become increasingly evident since 2014, when pressure on journalists and media outlets that are not part of clientelistic networks began to grow. The overall impact of these processes is seen in the lack of media pluralism and media freedoms.

After a period of a relatively slow, but constant rise on international media freedom lists, Serbia has had a significant drop since 2014. According to Reporters Without Borders, Serbia dropped from 64th place in 2008 to 90th place in 2019.

Graph 1: Serbia’s ranking in reports by Reporters without borders

Citizens of Serbia have very little trust in the media. Compared to the European average of 39% of citizens who trust the news, in Serbia that number is only 20%. The cause for this absence of trust and the decline of media freedom is found in many areas of the media system: a non-reactive media regulator, the fact the public media service is unable to reach complete independence, lack of media pluralism, as well as the ever growing pressure on journalists and the media in general.

Graph 2: Number of attacks on journalists, according to the Independent Journalists’ of Serbia’s data

An independent regulator in the field of audio and audiovisual media was introduced in 2003, and started operating in 2005. Until 2014, the regulator was called the Republic Broadcasting Agency (RBA, Serbian RRA), and today it is the Regulatory Body for Electronic Media (REM). From the very beginning, the regulator failed to achieve the necessary independence, both in organizational and financial terms, as well as in the implementation of its competencies.

Two public media services – Radio Television of Serbia (RTS) and Radio Television of Vojvodina (RTV) – were formed with a delay in 2006. The regulations ensure the autonomy and editorial independence by financing and the manner of electing the members of the managing boards, who elect the executive director. The task of satisfying the wishes of listeners and viewers in regard to the program content is entrusted to the program councils. Designed to enable media services to take on the role of public interest bearers in the media system, these mechanisms have never fully taken flight. The members of the management boards are elected by the REM Council, and the organizational (in)dependence of REM is in direct relation with the organizational (in)dependence of RTS and RTV. Instead of protecting the independence of media public services, the managing boards have repeatedly obstructed their work. When it comes to media content, relevant analyses show that RTS and RTV news programs do not meet the standards and requirements related to impartial reporting, diversity and social inclusion.

The system of public information is moving to digital space, but it cannot be said that the expansion of digital communication has had exclusively positive effects on media freedom and pluralism of opinion in the virtual public sphere. Although the number of Internet users is growing, there is still a digital divide. The Internet, on the one hand, has provided a platform for excellent research newsrooms and enabled a richer offer of media content for groups that have been neglected in traditional media. On the other hand, online media that serve as party media have also multiplied. In addition, opportunities for covert influence on public opinion have opened up, and the Internet as a channel is often abused to intimidate and spread hate speech.

Trends

View all

MEDIA AND DEMOCRACY

Holding the media captive

Grade

Negative

The process of using media institutions as political instruments, the abuse of public money intended for the media, as well as the media organizations themselves, intensified after 2014. The Regulatory Body for Electronic Media (REM), through a series of controversial elections of members of the Council, put itself at the service of politicians. This resulted in it becoming an ineffective actor who does not fulfill its competencies. Consequently, two public media services, whose boards are elected by REM, have lost their independence and editorial autonomy. Measures aimed at encouraging media pluralism, state advertising and non-transparent allocation of public money are increasingly rewarding the media that report uncritically on the authorities. Contrary to media laws, the state remained the owner of one part of the media, and became an active participant in the market of cable distribution.

MEDIA AND DEMOCRACY

Increased number of pressures and attacks on journalists

Grade

Negative

Rating: NEGATIVE Since 2014, journalists' associations have been recording increasing pressure on journalists and media workers. These pressures mainly come from the political sphere. In addition to the most dangerous type of pressure (physical attacks), organized campaigns of discrediting journalists on social networks and tabloid media are also used. Administrative harassment (tax inspections, etc.), denying access to events and information of public importance are another part of that long list. Journalist protection mechanisms are underdeveloped and inefficient, despite the establishment of a Permanent Working Group on the Safety of Journalists in 2016. These pressures and obstacles, together with a relatively underdeveloped professional culture, have led to increased self-censorship among journalists.

MEDIA AND DEMOCRACY

Reduction of internal pluralism in the media

Grade

Negative

With the increasingly intense and comprehensive captivity of the media, internal media pluralism is being lost. Citizens can find different points of view in the abundance of offers, but individual news media do not provide them with access to a variety of voices, positions and perspectives. This is especially true for political information. The space for exchanging opinions and confronting views is all but gone, which leads the media to uniform and one-sided reporting. Especially worrying is the fact that there is a lack of pluralism on the two public media services, as well as on televisions that have been granted a license to broadcast programs country-wide.

MEDIA AND DEMOCRACY

Increasing the use of the Internet as a means of information

Grade

Positive and negative

In the last decade, there has been a significant increase in the use of the Internet among citizens. The openness of digital communication enables many social actors to communicate their messages, and citizens to get acquainted with more diverse information. The Internet has provided a platform for investigative and fact-checking newsrooms, as well as for local media. However, the digital public sphere follows the framework of political and media polarization, not offering spaces for dialogue. Also, the internet has brought new opportunities for pressure, intimidation, spreading hate speech and fake news. Especially in the field of political information, it enabled covert influences on public opinion through organized false accounts that support the government and attack those who question it and try to hold it politically responsible.

Recommendations

View all

MEDIA AND DEMOCRACY

Ensure work autonomy and improve the functioning of the Regulatory Body for Electronic Media

The Regulatory Body for Electronic Media is not autonomous in relation to the political sphere and consequently does not fulfill its basic tasks in terms of improving the quality and diversity of content, protection of the public interest and the development of freedom of expression.

In order to depoliticize, the composition of the REM Council should be changed so that the number of state representatives in the Council is less than half. Allowing REM to impose fines on the media would improve its efficiency. REM should be obligated to regularly conduct and publish reports on monitoring of media coverage during the election campaign, as well as to conduct regular annual media market research in order to prevent media concentration.

MEDIA AND DEMOCRACY

Ensure full transparency of media ownership and allocation of public money to the media

Ensuring transparency of media ownership is an important precondition for identifying unwanted political and economic pressures on the media.

Transparency of ownership should be ensured by changing the type of data listed in the media registers, enabling inspection control and imposing penalties for inaccurate data. The registers should cover all public payments to the media. It is necessary to regulate more precisely the area of public information and advertising, as well as the area of public procurement of public authorities and all companies in which the state is the majority owner.

MEDIA AND DEMOCRACY

Promote media pluralism

The decline of media pluralism is expressed in the field of political information - as an internal pluralism of voices and views represented in the media, and exists at the level of the entire system - as a lack of quality local media and civil society media.

The lack of internal pluralism is particularly problematic in the context of the two public media services of Radio Television of Vojvodina and Radio Television of Serbia. REM should be obligated to monitor the state of media pluralism, especially in the pre-election period. The process of project co-financing of media content needs to be improved so that citizens participate in the process of determining topics of public interest, and that the commissions have the necessary expertise and independence.

MEDIA AND DEMOCRACY

Ensure the smooth operation of journalists

Journalists and media workers need to be provided with a high level of security to pursue their profession freely.

This includes ending the campaign to appease journalists, effective protection in the event of an attack, and the autonomy and efficiency of the judiciary in processing attacks on journalists. Journalists need to be provided with access to all information of public importance. The introduction of internal mechanisms for establishing and maintaining editorial autonomy should be promoted.

Media and Democracy

Jelena Kleut

Trends

Holding the media captive

Increased number of pressures and attacks on journalists

Reduction of internal pluralism in the media

Increasing the use of the Internet as a means of information

Recommendations

Ensure work autonomy and improve the functioning of the Regulatory Body for Electronic Media

Ensure full transparency of media ownership and allocation of public money to the media

Promote media pluralism

Ensure the smooth operation of journalists

Gender Equality

Civil Society