{"id":218295,"date":"2026-09-12T13:49:13","date_gmt":"2026-09-12T11:49:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/serbiantimes.info\/en\/?p=218295"},"modified":"2026-09-12T13:49:15","modified_gmt":"2026-09-12T11:49:15","slug":"telekom-unlocks-informer-and-pink-ahead-of-elections-experts-warn-that-the-goal-is-propaganda-and-influencing-voters","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/serbiantimes.info\/en\/telekom-unlocks-informer-and-pink-ahead-of-elections-experts-warn-that-the-goal-is-propaganda-and-influencing-voters\/","title":{"rendered":"TELEKOM UNLOCKS INFORMER AND PINK AHEAD OF ELECTIONS: Experts warn that the goal is propaganda and influencing voters!"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Telekom<\/a><\/em><\/strong> has enabled users who receive their television signal via antenna to watch channels that are normally part of its offering, including Kurir and Informer. However, according to Rodoljub \u0160abi\u0107, the problem is not only which channels are available and what content they broadcast, but above all the way in which the programming is distributed.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u0160abi\u0107 believes that, in the narrow legal sense, the situation is quite clear: broadcasting terrestrial television programming requires an appropriate license from the regulatory body.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cSo, it comes down to the fact that some entities that do not have a license to broadcast terrestrial programming are broadcasting. This is unquestionably illegal. Not only do Kurir and Informer<\/a> and some of the other entities you mentioned \u2013 Blic, Euronews and so on \u2013 not have such licenses, but neither does Telekom itself. Therefore, in my view, there is absolutely no question that this constitutes a violation of the Electronic Media Act,\u201d he adds.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to his interpretation, the fact that Telekom has a business or technical explanation for its move does not change the legal nature of the procedure. If terrestrial programming is being broadcast without the necessary license, the way the decision is presented does not eliminate the problem.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cSomeone who does not have the necessary licenses is broadcasting the programming, terrestrial programming. A license from REM<\/a> is required to broadcast such programming, whether national, regional or local, but in any case it is necessary. Without that license, the programming should not be broadcast, and what Mtel is doing, regardless of the explanations and reasons it gives, does not call into question the illegality of that procedure.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is not just a technical issue<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

However, both interviewees warn that the debate does not end with the question of technical or regulatory legality. The timing of Telekom\u2019s move gives it particular significance: elections<\/a> have been called, and the campaign is a period in which control over the media space becomes particularly important.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u0160abi\u0107 therefore separates two aspects of the problem. The first is legal, while the second concerns motives and the political context.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

He points out that another move in the electronic communications sector occurred almost simultaneously: Yettel removed N1 and Nova S from the packages<\/a> of a certain number of users. In both cases, according to him, commercial explanations were offered.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cWhatever those explanations may be, regardless of the motives behind them, I stand by this: it is unacceptable for terrestrial programming to be broadcast by someone who does not have a license to do so. As far as the motives are concerned, it is very difficult to believe the ones that have been given. And even if they are true, the timing chosen to begin implementing them is extremely inappropriate,\u201d \u0160abi\u0107 emphasizes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For \u0160abi\u0107, the problematic timing takes on additional significance because of the institutional context in which the elections are being held.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is not just a technical issue<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

However, both interviewees warn that the debate does not end with the question of technical or regulatory legality. The timing of Telekom\u2019s move gives it particular significance: the elections have been called, and the campaign is a period in which control over the media space becomes particularly important.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u0160abi\u0107 therefore separates two aspects of the problem. The first is legal, while the second concerns motives and the political context.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

He points out that another move in the electronic communications sector occurred almost simultaneously: Yettel removed N1 and Nova S from the packages<\/a> of a certain number of users. In both cases, according to him, commercial explanations were offered.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cWhatever those explanations may be, regardless of the motives behind them, I stand by this: it is unacceptable for terrestrial programming to be broadcast by someone who does not have a license to do so. As far as the motives are concerned, it is very difficult to believe the ones that have been given. And even if they are true, the timing chosen to begin implementing them is extremely inappropriate,\u201d \u0160abi\u0107 emphasizes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For \u0160abi\u0107, the problematic timing takes on additional significance because of the institutional context in which the elections are being held.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But Veljanovski, like \u0160abi\u0107, does not limit the issue to the regulatory question. He directly links the move to the upcoming elections.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cOf course, it is clear that Telekom has done this now because of the upcoming elections, because it wants to increase the possibility of exerting influence through the television programs in its offering, to increase the possibility of influence by the authorities, that is, the regime, and to ensure that information important to the regime reaches as many viewers as possible. There is now no doubt that this is what it is about.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Veljanovski also views the move in the context of previous changes to the legal framework governing media ownership. As he notes, at the end of 2023, a provision was added to the Law on Public Information and Media allowing state-owned or partially state-owned companies to be founders and owners of media outlets.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThat is just the tip of the iceberg, because it has been known for years that this strategy of increasing the authorities\u2019 influence over public communication through Telekom was being prepared. Above all, when a provision was added to the Law on Public Information and Media, adopted at the end of 2023, allowing a state-owned or partially state-owned company to be the founder and owner of a media outlet. Now we can see why they wanted that at the time and what the goal was,\u201d Veljanovski says.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

READ MORE: <\/mark><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
\n
STUDENTI MA\u0160INSKOG FAKULTETA U BEOGRADU PORU\u010cILI: „Ako rektor odbije zahtev za pomeranje po\u010detka akademske godine, slede blokade do kraja izbora!“<\/a><\/blockquote>