CIVICUS discusses media freedoms in Serbia with Marija Babić, a lawyer and researcher at the Independent Association of Journalists of Serbia (NUNS), an organisation that monitors press freedom, journalist safety and threats to independent media.

Press freedom has been deteriorating in Serbia for years, but the anti-corruption protest movement that erupted in November 2024 has brought the crisis to a head. Reporters covering the protests have faced legal harassment, physical attacks and smear campaigns from pro-government media. State-controlled outlets have framed protests as foreign-backed and independent media as enemies of the state, and have disproportionately targeted women journalists.

What risks do journalists face when covering protests?

Since the protests began, journalist safety has deteriorated dramatically. In 2025, NUNS recorded over 380 cases of attacks, threats and pressure against journalists, with a sharp increase in physical violence. The situation worsened further when a tent camp was established in Pionirski Park, a public park opposite the National Assembly. Government supporters, some with criminal records, blocked independent journalists from reporting, using intimidation, threats and physical attacks. Police consistently failed to respond, even when journalists were clearly marked as press and not interfering with police work.

Police have become the greatest security risk for journalists. From March to December 2025, NUNS recorded 77 cases of police attacks on journalists, unjustified detentions and police failures to respond. Attacks increased dramatically, yet convictions remained unacceptably low. This combination of violence and impunity has made reporting from protests extraordinarily risky.

Then there was the sound cannon incident. At a Belgrade protest on 15 March, thousands had to flee the street due to a strange sound that disturbed them and caused health issues for some people.

The High Public Prosecutor’s Office in Belgrade issued a statement announcing an investigation into the incident, specifically examining whether it had been planned and rehearsed with the aim of provoking unrest and leading to a violent change of the constitutional order and endangering state security.

The sound cannon was widely discussed in the media at the time. Journalists raised the issue because it was seen as one of the most significant moments of what many described as a complete breakdown of the rule of law. I was personally nearby, as our office is around 20 metres from the street where it happened. I was outside at that moment and saw people running away in panic.

Immediately after the prosecution’s statement, media outlets and social media accounts close to the authorities launched a broad campaign targeting independent journalists and media who reported on the incident or expressed opinions about it. There were calls for their accountability for a ‘staged incident’ and for arrests for ‘participating in a coup’, as well as claims that they were part of an ‘organised media group’ working in the interests of enemies of the state and society. NUNS and other journalist and media associations immediately reacted, warning about the serious risk of threats to freedom of expression and media freedoms, and about possible criminal liability for spoken words and opinions.

Police actions followed just a few days later. Journalist Vojkan Kostić, editor of the Beta News Agency, was present with analyst Aleksandar Radić when police summoned Radić to come to his apartment. Kostić went there to report on the police search of the apartment. While he was on site and performing his journalist duties, the police served him with a summons to report to the Criminal Police Directorate on suspicion of involvement in activities allegedly related to the preparation of crimes against the constitutional order and security of Serbia. The police were reportedly unpleasant, with messages he perceived as intimidation and warnings he could become a suspect if he continued reporting. This shows the intimidation of journalists and undermining of the right to freedoms of speech and opinion.

Why has pro-government media smeared NUNS?

NUNS opened its doors to journalists and media workers during the protests so they could get some rest, stay in touch with their newsrooms and continue their work as journalists. Pro-government media immediately weaponised this gesture, running a campaign that labelled NUNS as supporting the riots. This reflects an established pattern. Anyone not siding with the authorities faces systematic campaigns by pro-government media and tabloids. What started as smear campaigns has evolved into serious targeting that endangers journalists’ safety.

The pattern starts with high-ranking state officials, runs through pro-government media and ends with serious threats from citizens conditioned to see independent journalists as enemies of the state. NUNS has become recognised for its commitment to independent journalism, and therefore its resistance to state control of information. We have been demonised for the basic act of providing journalists a safe space to do their jobs.

How have state media covered the protests?

State-controlled outlets don’t report on the protests objectively. Tabloids openly spread disinformation and propaganda. Other state media give a platform to experts who attack the protests and students, creating an appearance of balance while actively undermining the movement. The public broadcaster, Radio Television of Serbia, has been neither truthful nor timely, and at times has gone completely silent on significant protest developments.

Independent media outlets cover the protests critically but face constant pressure, including smear campaigns and targeting by high-ranking officials. Local outlets are in the worst position, often operating where state resources and pressure are most concentrated. The Regulatory Authority for Electronic Media either doesn’t function or acts as an arm of government.

How are women journalists specifically targeted?

The targeting of women journalists is a long-time trend that has deepened under the protests. In 2025, a third of the 77 cases of police attacks on journalists, unjustified detentions and police failures to respond were directed at women. But targeting goes far beyond physical attacks. Women journalists face threats of burning, hanging, murder and rape. They receive hate speech and threats targeting their children and families.

Women journalists face systematic online harassment, including large volumes of misogynistic and sexist insults, impersonation and attempts to take over their accounts. They are also targeted with strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) and threatened with prison sentences and bans on practising journalism. These meritless legal actions brought by powerful figures and bodies are meant to intimidate, financially drain and silence them. The combination of physical threats, online harassment and legal persecution makes an already impossible environment worse.

What’s needed to improve respect for media freedoms in Serbia?

Media freedom barely exists in Serbia anymore. Reports by international organisations, including the European Commission, show the position of journalists is poor and deteriorating. I believe conditions are the most difficult in 20 to 25 years. A large number of media outlets are under ruling coalition control. Those that are not face constant pressure and attacks. Media capture through concentration of ownership around state-owned companies undermines media pluralism. State funding has become the primary tool for control.

Real change would require action at the highest level of government. Until then, genuine information will continue to come from a small number of independent media outlets and social media. These have become more trustworthy than much of official media, which is a disturbing sign of state capture. Independent journalists must keep reporting despite the risks. But the system itself must change for genuine media freedom to exist.

CIVICUS interviews a wide range of civil society activists, experts and leaders to gather diverse perspectives on civil society action and current issues for publication on its CIVICUS Lens platform. The views expressed in interviews are the interviewees’ and do not necessarily reflect those of CIVICUS. Publication does not imply endorsement of interviewees or the organisations they represent.