The Balkan Troll of the Month is an individual, a group of individuals or a media outlet that spreads hate based on gender, ethnicity, religion, or other diversity categories. The Balkan Troll is selected based on hate speech incidents identified across the Western Balkans region.

In May, journalist Biljana Lukić tweeted a video in which the Patriarch of the Serbian Orthodox Church, Porfirije, is seen to be insulting women and everyone who supports gender-sensitive language. The video circulated on social media, resulting in a number of reactions from the public.

In the video, seemingly referring to an unknown individual, he went on to label her as wretched and miserable, using strongly insulting language towards her. He, furthermore, commented on all those who support gender-sensitive language claiming that by doing so “you are destroying the essence of our being, and you are there to take care of it”. With this statement, he was implying that women who are in support of gender-sensitive language are going against their naturally imposed roles in society as mothers and caregivers. This message was received by one part of the public as an insult to all women, portraying them and the fight for gender equality as a threat to society.

Following this, the Serbian Orthodox Church published a press release in which it continued this rhetoric, using inappropriate, insulting language, and advocating against the Law on Gender Equality. However, this time it was also directly targeting Brankica Janković, Commissioner for the Protection of Equality, and Zorana Mihajlović, former Minister of Mining and Energy in Serbia. They are both known for advocating for gender equality and more specifically, for gender-sensitive language.

Gender-sensitive language, which promotes equality between women and men, is still much debated and contested by various experts and professionals in Serbia. Nevertheless, the Law on Gender Equality which mandates the use of gender-sensitive language is still in place in the country. Despite varying opinions on the matter, no one should feel discriminated against or attacked for its support.

This is indeed not the first time that the Patriarch has spoken out against gender-sensitive language and the fight for gender equality, labelling it as ‘gender ideology’. During Porfirije’s Easter message on the 16^th of April, he urged individuals to ‘stop the violence against the Serbian language’. On this occasion, he also mentioned the Law on Gender Equality, which was adopted in 2021 and which clearly outlines and calls for the use of gender-sensitive language in state administration and the media. He, however, saw this as a ‘fight against marriage and the family’. This statement was widely criticised by the public, with the loudest criticism coming from both Janković and Mihajlović.

Having an important, influential religious figure such as Porfirije make such comments which undermine and disregard the importance of gender equality can be, at least, called disrespectful and discriminatory. Sexist narratives like these are, furthermore, spread and shared amongst the public who can internalise such ideas. Individuals such as Porfirije and institutions like the Serbian Orthodox Church hold a large amount of power and therefore responsibility as well, and should not be using their platform as a means to spread hateful language and sexism in society.

In a country where 18 femicides have occurred since the beginning of 2023, gender-sensitive language and the equal protection of women and their rights are extremely important. In a democratic society, no one should ever be discriminated against or feel threatened due to their fight for equal rights.

It only took a few hours for a tragedy to become mired in sensationalism, disinformation, and unethical reporting.

In the early hours of the morning of 3 May, eight students and a security guard were killed and six students and a teacher injured during a school shooting in Belgrade, Serbia. This was not only a personal tragedy for the victims, their families, and communities, but a tragic event that struck Serbia’s society as a whole. It was the first time Serbia faced a crime of this scale for a long time.

It didn’t take long for some media to engage in unethical reporting. The media speculated on the number of dead and injured long before parents received official information from relevant institutions on the health and safety of their children. Television channels with national coverage and a large audience such as Pink and Prva also published unverified information about teachers being killed, which was later confirmed not to be true. Apart from being against the law and journalistic standards, this kind of reporting, especially in sensitive situations like this one, is irresponsible, harmful, and can even be dangerous to everyone affected.

TV Prva conducted a live interview in front of the school with a student who witnessed the shooting less than two hours after it happened. Her face was not blurred, and the journalist called her by her first name, further violating her privacy by revealing her identity. Other media outlets shared her statement, amplifying the negative effects. According to Serbian law “The media service provider is obliged to protect the identity of minors, if there are indications that they are a perpetrator, witness or victim of violence, a criminal act or other illegal behavior or if they have attempted suicide.” Media breached the Code of Journalists of Serbia by interviewing students and parents immediately after the shooting. When reporting on violent crimes such as this one, it is crucial to put the dignity and privacy of the victims, witnesses, and everyone affected as a priority.

However, the regulations did not stop the Serbian media reporting on every single detail about the shooting and the people who were affected. The full name, picture, medical reports, and multiple statements the accused 13-year-old shooter gave to police officers and social workers were leaked to the public in a matter of hours and have flooded the mainstream and social media for the past several days. This violates both his and the victims’ right to privacy and therefore is against several laws and regulations, but is also a usual manner of reporting on violent crimes for Serbian media. They are rarely held accountable for it.

Institutions and government officials also failed to protect the privacy of everyone involved, especially minors. At a special press conference that was broadcasted live on almost all television channels with national coverage, the head of the Police Department for the City of Belgrade, Veselin Milić, announced the full name and surname of the accused juvenile perpetrator and quoted the statement he gave to police. He also showed evidence from the ongoing investigation including a sketch of the plan of the school shooting and a list of names being targeted. This was extremely irresponsible and dangerous as the public now had more details about the shooting than it was ever necessary. This trend was continued by the President of the Republic of Serbia himself, Aleksandar Vučić, who, during his press conference, shared in detail information about the accused shooter including about his father, his work and salary, his medical records and the ongoing investigation. After this, the media only continued in the same manner, pushing sensationalist content and republishing information that should have been protected in the first place.

This was not in the public’s interest and has only amplified the negative effects of this tragic event. The media in Serbia are obliged by several regulations to “protect the identity of minors even when this has not been done by a public authority or another person, including another media publisher”. When extensive details about mass shootings are shared in such a way, this can potentially lead to imitating violent behavior and wider effects of social contagion.

Sensationalism in media reporting on the school shooting was not only reflected in thoroughly dissecting this case and everyone involved, but also in repeating harmful messages that amplified the voices of people who were not experts in relevant fields for this topic, but rather just wanted to share their opinion on the event. It is always important that the media only contacts significant and professional sources, which is even more important when dealing with sensitive topics. Tabloids and other mainstream media also created sensationalist “clickable” phrases which have been repeated endlessly, such as calling the crime a “bloody massacre” and the shooter a “child monster”. Such media coverage is unnecessary, not in the public interest, and only serves for clicks and profit. It is extremely harmful to victims, their families and society, as it adds to collective trauma, and incites fear. Excessive details and media attention can potentially increase the chances of such violent crimes being repeated in the near future, therefore further jeopardizing public safety.

The day after the shooting, the news was filled with various incidents at schools across Serbia where children were making threats and bringing toy guns to school. A day after that, the country faced another tragic event – a mass shooting near Mladenovac, in which eight people were killed and 13  injured. Serbia observed three days of national mourning and has an atmosphere of collective shock and great sadness..

As the United States of America has the highest number of school shootings,  several USA research papers deal with the effects of media reporting on these crimes. They all share the same findings –harmful media reporting can provoke copycat incidents by people who may see the perpetrators as models or heroes, further traumatise survivors, families, and communities and additionally stigmatise people with mental illness and negatively affect those who are struggling with mental health.

Undoubtedly, the media have a huge role in reactions to violent crimes, and it seems they have failed when reporting on the school shooting in Belgrade. Even though critics immediately warned of the potential harmful effects if their reporting, it seems as if mainstream media learned nothing, as they repeated the same mistakes when reporting on the mass shooting in Mladenovac.

Social media beamed with sensationalist content about the shootings as well, with children and young people leaving comments that make jokes and justify the school shooting, and even videos reenacting the crime. This was another shock and cause for worry in the public, followed by condemnation and misunderstanding. In an interview for Buka magazine, psychologist Ivana Jakšić explained this phenomenon by saying that “Due to the inability to cope with the negative emotions and fears that the event caused them, they show behavior … that is contrary to what they really feel. They will not be sensitive, sad, scared, and powerless, but will laugh in the face of threats, make jokes, and pull pranks”. She added that this behavior should be met with understanding and support rather than judgement. “Such behavior, … should be treated as a serious threat, but above all as a call for help from a child who is suffering. This is exactly why talking with children about the tragic events that marked the previous days is necessary.”

The Faculty of Philosophy at the University of Belgrade recently published Psychological guidelines for media reporting after crisis events which addressed the harmful consequences of irresponsible reporting on children and youth saying that “Sensitive and unverified information, assumptions about persons, personal relationships and events related to them can cause additional confusion in children and young people, feelings of anger, mistrust, and injustice, as well as the feeling that they are not understood by the wider community, which can have serious psychological consequences and slow down the recovery process”. This document also outlines risks and provides helpful guidelines for responsible reporting.

As the media hold a powerful place and have a major influence on society, especially when reporting on violent crimes such as mass shootings, it is crucial to report in a responsible, ethical, and professional manner. The reporting should only provide necessary, verified information, they should refrain from sensationalism and always prioritise the privacy and dignity of the victims, witnesses, their families, and all of the affected. Helpful media coverage on events like this can have a significant positive effect in educating the public and providing comfort for victims and the community. After providing space for everyone to process this tragic event, it is the role of the media to raise important topics such as prevention and understanding of violence, mental health, gun laws, and holding institutions accountable.

Author: Anja Anđušić

Photo: Reuters

Manipulating the myth of Kosovo, the politics of Aleksandar Vučić has enabled public/media discourse to become consumed with hatred towards vulnerable groups (women, the LGBTQ+ population, people of different religious and political affiliations) and almost completely devoid of empathy and solidarity.

When former British footballer and current sports presenter Gary Lineker tweeted about the UK government’s controversial migration bill, BBC’s management cut his airtime. The reaction by the British public as well as by prominent figures including his Match of the Day co-hosts was immediate. 

Lineker’s tweet characterised the UK government’s migration bill as “immeasurably cruel” and “directed at the most vulnerable people in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 30s”.

On the other side of Europe, in Belgrade, Aleksandar Šapić, a former water polo athlete and the current Mayor of Belgrade, said that the integration of the Roma is impossible unless they want it and used stereotypes that are commonly used against the Rome population:

“There have been attempts to provide Roma families with permanent accommodation, but they do not stay there for long. They rip out doors and windows, strip the plumbing, sell all that can be sold, cause disturbance to their neighbours and eventually return to their unhygienic settlements.”

Serbia’s Roma Party filed charges against him but despite the criticism he received – mostly from the Roma community – Šapić continued with the same narrative and mentioned that he did not consider his comments discriminatory, as he had not referred to the entire Roma community. He claimed he was not concerned about criminal charges filed against him by the Roma Party.  Nataša Tasić Knežević, who is an opera singer and member of SNS, as well as Roma herself and an activist for the rights of the Roma people, commented on Šapić’s statement by saying that he “offended Belgrade and all people who live there“.

Mensur Haliti, director of the Office for Roma Initiatives and Democracy at the Open Society Foundation, stated for Serbian daily newspaper Danas that Šapić’s words “are racist and violate international, European and state laws,” whereas Branko Đurić, the editor of the television show Romanipen went one step further and stated for the weekly Vreme that Šapić “recreates dangerous concepts that once led the Roma to the guillotine and gas chambers”.

Lineker and Šapić’s cases may be different but the way they were reported by the Serbian media is indicative of the Serbian media environment. For the media close to Serbia’s government, Lineker’s case was not covered widely. In general, positive representations that do not serve the government’s agenda are rare. More independent media on the other hand, covered Lineker’s case widely and called attention to Šapić’s inappropriate comments.

Hatred ‒ a pattern for personal advancement

By looking at those two cases comparatively it becomes clear that the Serbian media environment lacks from positive representation of diversity-related issues. Why is it so difficult for the country’s media to share examples of solidarity and empathy towards those who do not have a voice or whose voice is rarely heard?

Nebojša Milenković, a writer, art historian and curator, who constantly points out the anomalies of Serbian society, says that the reason for this lies in the fact that Serbian society is neither decent nor civilized:

“As a society we are dead, or clinically dead. There are ordered and decent societies in which people do not degrade one another, in which institutions do not degrade the citizens, and we do not have either one of these qualities: neither are we decent nor civilized. It pains to realize that it pays off, so to say, to generate hatred. The highest state officials spread nothing but hatred around them. The President deploys an overbearing, arrogant and unseemly manner of speaking when he talks about his political opponents and the media, or anyone who dares say anything he considers unwelcome. It creates a pattern, a model, a desirable norm of behaviour, so the members of his party think that hatred is a reference for personal advancement. The Serbian Parliament is an arena for exercising hatred. There is not a trace of parliamentarism or democracy there. They compete at reciprocating insults and being creative in expressing hatred. Serbia is not ruled by Aleksandar Vučić. Serbia is ruled by hatred and fear. Vučić himself is terrified and panic-stricken, and he knows only too well why he should be afraid,”

Milenković told RDN.

The case of Kosovo still seems to be present in every conversation in Serbia’s public domain and it influences different political and media narratives. Milenković underlines that present-day Serbia has been brought up on the myth that Kosovo is the heart of Serbia, which has been the platform Vučić has used to win elections.

“The talk about Serbia-Kosovo agreement is a generator that brutalizes our society. What lies ahead of us is a dramatic period in which those from “the patriotic Serbia” will fight among themselves, and what they call patriotism is anything but that. This distorted view of patriotism now metastasizes in the form of media messages, posters, messages on pavements, murals, fabricated affairs… There are, of course, incidents of defending common logic. We may be able to recall numerous instances of solidarity and empathy in the public/media sphere, but they still remain incidents, which is what decency has become here ‒ an incident. The reason for that is the fear that dominates the society. It is like a virus, it spreads faster, faster than Corona for example. On the other hand, courage is like a virus, too. It could also spread if it were a desirable model of behaviour. As for the reason why it is not, the answer lies in the pathologies of our society; for there are dogmatic societies, in which the truths are not questioned but created by a single person, and then there are questioning societies ‒ developed societies in which there is a dialogue and where people exchange their opinions,” Milenković explains and adds that Kosovo has become a multiple risk for Serbian citizens in every way: it has become a personal issue of Aleksandar Vučić, whom the representatives of the international community have approached with a “take it or leave it” ultimatum ‒ “those who refuse take the blame for everything”, which shows that the international community, too, treats the peoples of this region and their representatives with astounding disrespect.

Examples of solidarity expressed by public figures in Serbia may be rare, but they exist. For example, the singer Seka Aleksić publicly opposed the leader of the right-wing movement Dveri Boško Obradović, who feels that in vitro fertilization by donor reproductive material from Spain and Denmark requires “particular moral and ethical assessment”.

“You have offended all people who struggle to become parents in this way, shame on you. Who are you to decide and impose opinions? It is God who grants children, whether through natural conception, IVF or with donor eggs, and brings joy to thousands of families. Do you know how many couples struggle like this?” posted Aleksić on Twitter, as the media report.

The actor Milan Marić also spreads solidarity and empathy in the public sphere whenever he can. As a host of the recently held national Eurovision selection, he used the opportunity to send a message to the auditorium speaking against violence against women, children, the elderly and the LGBTQ+ population. For a long time, the writer Vladimir Arsenijević has used the power of public speaking and his personal integrity to stand up for the weak and vulnerable. Since the beginning of war in Ukraine, Arsenijević has been helping collect aid and speaking publicly about the importance of understanding the Ukrainian situation. He took aid to Ukraine, and organized residence in Serbia for Ukrainian writers. Arsenijević, as well as Milenković, finds that the reasons for the poor state of the Serbian society and media, which are often blamed for everything, lie in what we live, which according to him is “the result of revisionism, self-victimization and utter inability to take responsibility for anything”.

After all, is that not the best answer to the question why there are more and more of those like Šapić and fewer and fewer of those like Lineker in the Serbian society?

Author: Snežana Miletić

Photo: LCV / Shutterstock