HERE’S HOW MUCH THE PEOPLE PAY FOR MEDIA LOYALTY TO VUČIĆ: Informer and Alo received tens of millions through state funding competitions!

The system of competitive co-financing of media content in Serbia has been increasingly losing its purpose year after year and drifting away from its primary – legally defined – objective, while the results of this year’s competitions organized by the Ministry of Information and Telecommunications show that it has reached a complete fiasco, according to ANEM.

Instead of using public funds to promote the public interest and support the development of media pluralism and professionalism, the money allocated through this system has become a means of openly financing media outlets, organizations, and media groups close to the authorities, many of which continuously violate ethical standards. Paradoxically at first glance, professional, independent, and critical media have been penalized precisely for reporting in accordance with media ethics and professional standards, even though this should actually be one of the key criteria for awarding funds.

An analysis of the competitive funding system prepared by the Coalition for Media Freedom shows that Ministry funds are largely concentrated around a limited number of interconnected owners and media networks, many of which are undeniably part of the pro-government media system or are politically and financially linked to the ruling structures. Instead of public money being distributed based on project quality, contribution to the public interest, and respect for professional standards, the competition has been turned into a mechanism for strengthening the political and economic power of media actors serving the government’s media needs, ANEM warns.

In 2026, the Ministry distributed 482 million dinars through nine competitions. A total of 1,224 projects were submitted, 421 received funding, while 803 were rejected. However, behind the appearance of competition lies a deeply unequal system in which a significant portion of the funds ends up with the same media groups.

The media network associated with Radoica Milosavljević received 41.2 million dinars, the Best Media Team group, linked to the publishers of the tabloids Alo and Informer, received 32.6 million dinars, Slavko Stijaković’s network received 27.4 million dinars, Aleksandar Milutinović’s network received 22.3 million dinars, while Vladan Stefanović’s media group received 21.7 million dinars.

The figures clearly show that competitive co-financing no longer functions as support for diverse media outlets, but rather as a system for concentrating public money in the hands of a few privileged media centers. These privileged media groups also receive taxpayers’ money through other media financing mechanisms.

Particularly devastating is the fact that publishers of tabloids that have violated professional standards for years dominate among the recipients of state funding. Financing media outlets that continuously violate the Serbian Journalists’ Code represents a direct message that professionalism, ethics, and responsibility toward the public are no longer criteria for receiving taxpayers’ money—quite the opposite.

The picture is even worse considering that many critical media outlets and organizations have completely stopped applying for these competitions because discrimination has become obvious and the outcome of the process is clear in advance. When these media outlets no longer apply because they know they will be discriminated against, it is no longer a public competition but an administrative cover for a pre-arranged distribution of funds to politically favored recipients.

At the same time, the leading independent professional organizations—NUNS, UNS, ANEM, Lokal Pres, and the Media Association—received no funding in this competition, while significant support went to organizations publicly described as close to the authorities or as so-called GONGO organizations. Such a distribution is not an accidental mistake but part of a broader process in which independent actors are being pushed out of the public funding system, while organizations serving as pillars of government support are being institutionally strengthened.

The analysis also shows a dramatic weakening of independent local media. The share of Lokal Pres network members in Ministry funding fell from 6.38 percent in 2023 to 3.28 percent in 2024, and in the 2026 competition amounted to only 1.07 percent of the total allocated funds. This is not merely a statistical decline, but an indicator of the systematic exhaustion of local newsrooms that work in the interests of citizens.

Decisions on the allocation of funds were made by commissions whose composition and integrity raise serious concerns. Public money was allocated by commissions made up predominantly of members of questionable professional and moral credibility, in a system where organizations close to the authorities play a significant role in nominating commission members. This further raises questions about conflicts of interest, political influence, and the true independence of the decision-making process.

Journalists’ and media associations and trade unions are demanding an urgent and comprehensive reform of the competitive co-financing system: preventing conflicts of interest in the selection of commission members, full transparency regarding the ownership of beneficiaries, limiting the concentration of funds among connected media groups, mandatory consideration of previous violations of professional standards, and the publication of detailed explanations for all funding decisions.

If our demands are not met, the competitive co-financing system will continue, increasingly, to undermine the media market, strengthen politically favored and unethical media outlets, and suppress media organizations that uphold their profession and its standards, ANEM said.

Source: Nova Foto: M. M. / ATAImages