Why did the media and officials get it so wrong when it came to reporting the mass shooting that occurred on May 3rd at the “Vladislav Ribnikar” Elementary School in Belgrade and have they learned any lessons?

The media debacle started a few hours after a student shot and killed nine of his classmates and a school guard. Minister of Education, Branko Ruzic, held a press conference, without providing any real insight into the circumstances that led to the horrific tragedy, presenting the event as a result of “embracing Western values” and naming the internet and video games as culprits. Later in the day, the police chief of Belgrade, Veselin Milic, took an equally dangerous step further. Milic explained in detail the steps taken by the shooter, showing a hand-drawn plan and a list of the names of children the shooter had planned to target. These two moves made by state officials opened Pandora’s box.

Sensationalist headlines followed, along with misinformation about the victims and the suspected shooter. The media also shared details that should not have been made public, including a full name, photographs, and a medical report. Certain media outlets glorified the background of the murderer’s family. They went to the building where he lived, interviewed residents, intercepted neighbours, and wrote about how the suspected murderer was a well-behaved boy. Some even allegedly received information that in a psychiatric hospital the suspected shooter showed no remorse for the crime. Media outlets reported that the only question he repeatedly asked was when he would be released because he knew that as a minor, he could not be held accountable and punished for the crime. Some media outlets said the minor practiced shooting with his father and they shared pictures of the father and son in camouflage uniforms with weapons.  

Mother’s attempt to raise social awareness

The shooting was a shocking event for Serbians and it was not easy to navigate or understand. It is logical then to apply the experiences of others in similar situations. After a mass shooting in New Zealand, the country’s Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern did not mentioned the name of the shooter, reveal anything about him, or give him attention. The media did the same and should act as an example Serbia could follow. Like the media in New Zealand, Serbian media should have focused on the victims not the perpetrator..

One mother bravely tried and succeeded, for a short period of time, to change the initial discourse on the tragedy. Only a few days after the death of her daughter, a mother spoke to Nedeljnik and tabloid Kurir about why it is important to change the narrative of violence prevalent in Serbian society. She spoke about the need to reconsider the school system in the country, which does not teach empathy and solidarity. She initiated the discussion in an effort to stop misinforming the public and instead focus on the surviving children. She attempted to unite Serbian society in solving the problems it has to face. Unfortunately, she did not succeed. Narratives directed from the top of the government divided parents into two groups: those who support the normal continuation of education and those who believe that “Ribnikar” can no longer be a school.

And while some media, to a large extent, reported responsibly on the tragedy with respect for the victims and their families, pro-regime media, pro-regime media were following the government narratives. They included sending guidelines to resume classes five days after the shooting. However, this was a trigger for dissatisfaction among parents of surviving children, many media reported on the parents disatisfaction.and all decent media stood on their side.

Unfortunately, this did not include the national television station RTS, which is one of the few channels available throughout the whole territory of Serbia. For parents of surviving children, RTS did not provide opportunities for them to discuss “live” what is important for the families of the deceased and surviving children. The parents were offered to take part in a recording of the show, which would be broadcast later, but they refused. They had no better luck with the private television Pink, which has a national frequency. When the parents requested an appointment to discuss their demands and grief, TV Pink responded that it was no longer a topic for them.

Culture of pain censorship

It was slightly worse, but in a different way – through suppression by silence – for the victims of the mass murder in two villages near Belgrade, which occurred a day after the shooting in Belgrade. This mass murder, the president of Serbia, very wrongly and tendentiously, wanted to present as a terrorist act. His statement was echoed by all pro-government media, although it was not a terrorist act. The shooting in which eight people were killed and 14 injured was covered by the media very briefly. Unfortunately, the families of the victims had no media contacts so they were unable to inform the media of what was happening with the survivors and the families of those who suffered in Mladenovac.

Dr. Ivana Basic, an emotion anthropology researcher, has an interesting thesis about the two shootings and the role of the state and the media. She believes that the shooting in Mladenovac could have been prevented if May 4th had been declared a day of mourning after the shooting in “Ribnikar” on May 3rd. If a decision had been made on May 3rd to end the school year, it would have prevented the media circus with police departments sending letters to schools and the “creating lists of unruly students” scandal, as well as the false dilemma of whether we need psychologists or police more.

Clickbait competition

Instead of romanticizing the perpetrator of the crime and creating an image that portrays him as a hero, victim, or tormented soul by providing statements from witnesses claiming the perpetrator behaved “abnormally” or “irrationally,” speculating or allowing sources to speculate about the mental state or motive of the suspected perpetrator, the state and media should present facts about the perpetrator while characterizing their behavior as illegal and harmful. And certainly, both in person and on social media, speculation, conjecture, commentary, spreading rumors, and misinformation should be reduced.

To prevent the Werther effect – imitation of previous crimes – the Department of Psychology at the Faculty of Philosophy in Belgrade issued “Psychological Guidelines for Media Reporting After Crisis Events”. It states that publishing the perpetrators’ photos, their photos next to the victims, or graphic photos/videos from the crime scene should not be done. By doing so the survivors, their families, and the local community can be retraumatized. Instead, the focus should be on showing respect for the victims and survivors, sharing their personal stories with respect for their privacy. Describing the victims and those affected by the tragedy evokes empathy and encourages the public to understand and adopt their perspective.

In Serbia, unfortunately, this did not happen. As the state presented false questions and dilemmas to the public, there was a domino effect of wrong answers and diversion from the facts about the tragedy and the way forward. Following the tragedy, in an unbearable domino effect of false information, it was reported that the history teacher that had been wounded died and that the injured boy who was in the hospital was in critical condition, when in fact he was in a stable condition and preparing for treatment in America. A claim that TV N1 called for the release of the suspect was also false, while social media spread the news that blood donors who are unvaccinated were being sought. The decision of the Press Council regarding the violation of the code of journalism ethic were in vain.

It is interesting, for example, that in the days following the shooting, very few journalists remembered to bring any positive stories from schools. Journalist Ana Kalaba from the portal Nova.rs did so by publishing a story from a Serbian school where students returned from a competition with many awards, and their schoolmates welcomed them outside the school with thunderous applause.

From the perspective of a surviving child’s mother

Dr Aleksandra Bulatovic, senior research associate at the Institute for Philosophy and Social Theory at the University of Belgrade, and a member of the Laboratory for Philanthropy, Solidarity, and Care Studies, who has obtained a doctorate in the field of criminology from the Faculty of Law, shared her experience from the perspective of a mother of a seven-year-old who survived the massacre.

She pointed out that: “The problem of verifying the authority to speak on anything related to May 3rd has continued to this day. Fake institutions and experts who are not actually experts, representatives who are not actually representatives, and solutions that are not actually solutions. The media did not make an effort to thoroughly and responsibly inform themselves about everything important regarding the case, including any comparative practices. They did not show that they knew who was who or who could competently speak on which matter. The media coverage was almost completely based on reporting the feelings and impressions of anyone who wanted to say anything about the horrific tragedy that happened on May 3rd. Simply put, the media showed irresponsibility comparable to the irresponsibility of the institutions. In this way, they only confirmed the deep crisis of Serbian society.”

In the end, as the primary impression of media reporting on the tragedy of May 3rd, it remains that non-regime media represented the families of the victims and the surviving children, while state media constantly propagated a culture of pain censorship. And it is precisely this false makeup of reality, Serbian society, and its media that leads to ruin. This phenomenon is excellently defined with a rhetorical question by Dr Ivana Basic: “Do we need a culture of emotional suppression, a culture of fear and pain censorship, a culture from which love and empathy will be expelled? Hasn’t nurturing such a culture led to these terrible crimes?”

Author: Snežana Miletić

Photo: Chaikom/ Shutterstock

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