MEDIA MACHINE IN THE SERVICE OF THE GOVERNMENT: Vučić presented 96 percent positively, students 95 percent negatively, BIRODI reports!

The Bureau for Social Research (BIRODI) announced today that television stations with national coverage have turned the election campaign into a promotion of the Aleksandar Vučić – United Serbia list and the discrediting of the Students’ List – Students Win.

“Systematic and systemic violations of the Law on Electronic Media and the Rulebook on the Protection of Human Rights in the Provision of Media Services are taking place,” BIRODI states in its analysis.

According to the findings, out of 25,595 monitored minutes, the “United Serbia” electoral list led by Aleksandar Vučić was presented for a total of 12,878 minutes, of which 12,330 minutes, or 96 percent, had a positive tone.

The Students’ List was presented for a total of 10,024 minutes, of which 9,514 minutes, or 95 percent, had a negative tone during the 24-hour monitoring of five television stations with national coverage.

“This means that through the programs of five television stations, citizens were presented with two almost completely opposing media images of the electoral actors: one based on the promotion and affirmation of the government, and the other on criticism, negative portrayal and discrediting of its main electoral competitor,” BIRODI said.

BIRODI adds that the findings provide grounds for examining the conduct of media service providers in relation to Article 61 of the Law on Electronic Media, which regulates obligations concerning election campaigns.

“The findings point to possible violations of obligations relating to the equal representation of electoral participants, impartiality in reporting and the separation of informative content from political promotion,” BIRODI emphasizes.

BIRODI also points to the need to examine whether the analyzed content complies with Articles 4–8 of the Rulebook on the Protection of Human Rights in the Provision of Media Services, particularly regarding the protection of the dignity, rights and other legally protected interests of people being reported on.

“Continuous negative portrayal of one electoral actor, if accompanied by labeling, insults, unfounded accusations or denial of the opportunity to respond, may constitute grounds for establishing violations of regulations,” BIRODI states.

The organization adds that statistical imbalance in tone is not automatically proof of a violation of every provision mentioned, but that its pronounced scale, duration and repetition represent a “serious indicator requiring regulatory examination of specific program content and sanctions against media service providers.”

BIRODI stresses that the legal obligation of the Regulatory Authority for Electronic Media (REM) is not to keep statistical records as a basis for studies of media reporting, but to place collected data in the context of indicators of violations of media laws and regulations and sanctions against media service providers.

“Of particular concern is the fact that this structure of reporting was identified on television stations with national coverage, including the public broadcaster RTS 1,” the analysis states.

BIRODI notes that the formal presence of the Students’ List in programming does not mean genuine media representation in terms of an equal opportunity to address voters.

“Being present in a program as the subject of negative reporting is not the same as having the opportunity to present one’s own electoral program,” the analysis states.

BIRODI called on REM to examine the results of the 24-hour monitoring of RTS 1, Pink, Prva, B92 and Happy for the period from September 9 to October 15, 2026, and determine whether the broadcasters acted in accordance with the Law on Electronic Media and the Rulebook on the Protection of Human Rights in the Provision of Media Services.

It also asked REM to specifically analyze content in which political promotion, negative labeling and discrediting of electoral actors were presented in informative and analytical formats, as well as to publish the findings of its oversight, decisions of the REM Council and explanations regarding any decision to initiate or not initiate proceedings against broadcasters.

MORE TOPICS: