Some are withdrawing from the elections for the REM Council, while others are joining the Association of (pro-regime) Journalists of Serbia.

“This was not an election process, but an organized simulation of legality. Thirty objections were submitted regarding the obvious violations of the law, but none were considered, nor was there any attempt to rectify the irregularities. Despite this, all illegal proposers and candidates remained in the process, rendering the voting meaningless in advance. By participating, we would legitimize illegal candidates and undermine the REM as an independent body that should protect the public interest. The responsibility for the further course of the process lies with the parliamentary majority that consciously suspended the law and undermined the principles on which both the election of the REM Council and the REM itself must operate,” said Maja Stojanović from Civic Initiatives in an interview with Radar.

As far as the REM Council is concerned, the situation is well known and, unfortunately, a similar scenario played out in February of this year. With great skepticism and justified distrust towards the entire process following the manner in which the previous attempt to establish the Council was concluded, numerous names emerged among potential future members and proposers that had instilled confidence through their previous work, professional and expert results. These are precisely the names that, valuing their professional and moral credibility, withdrew from the process.

The withdrawal was preceded by as many as 30 objections submitted to the Committee for Culture and Information of the National Assembly regarding irregularities in the procedure. None of the objections were even considered or officially addressed. At meetings held on June 6, 9, and 11, 2025, the Committee, according to the proposers, consciously disregarded the Law on Electronic Media, accepting illegal proposers and candidates, thereby losing the legitimacy of the process.

“The current competition for the election of members of the REM Council and the entire procedure have been compromised to such an extent that anyone who values professional integrity cannot participate in it. The last 'drop in the bucket' of lawlessness was the attitude of the parliamentary Committee that rejected all objections without even considering them. Moreover, it previously confirmed all candidacies – including mine – regardless of alleged shortcomings. I emphasize that I was ready to contest my candidacy, expecting that the law would apply equally to all candidates. It is important to say that I accepted the candidacy in good faith, believing that this one would be within legal frameworks after the withdrawal of the previous competition,” said Jelka Jovanović, a journalist who was a candidate for the REM Council upon the proposal of the Commissioner for the Protection of Gender Equality, in an interview with Radar.

For our weekly, she states that she cannot yet assess whether there will be a continuation of this process after the withdrawal of legitimate authorized proposers and candidates or whether it will be repeated or annulled. She believes that the only correct decision would be to withdraw the competition but does not believe that will happen without some stronger pressure, this time not from within but from the EU, which is closely monitoring the process.

“If this evidently flawed process continues, Serbia will likely get the worst REM Council in history. This one, unlike the previous one, will have all nine members who will, without a doubt, decide unanimously under the safe hand of spokesperson Olivera Zekić,” she concludes.

The Role of REM

REM, the key body responsible, among other things, for overseeing electronic media, issuing licenses for television and radio stations, as well as ensuring equal representation of parties during electoral campaigns, has been subject to criticism for years due to its lack of independence and inadequate responses to violations by broadcasters. REM is also part of numerous reports from European institutions and organizations, which directly link its work to the absence of progress in freedom of expression, the protection of citizens' rights to information, and the provision of media pluralism.

Without expert and impartial members of the Council, REM can only remain what it has been so far, with the possibility of increasing its passivity and susceptibility to political influences—if the media-mediated reality of the most influential and accessible channels in Serbia must further conform to the interests of the authorities.

The first election for the REM Council suffered clinical death after the public hearing of candidates. The current election process effectively collapsed one step before—we did not even reach the alignment of (il)legal proposers regarding (il)legal candidates. If the authorities insist on continuing this illegitimate process, they will only be able to do so with the help of artificial respiration from Brussels. If a new REM Council is elected under such circumstances, it will be a stillborn entity, an empty shell devoid of substance and legitimacy, whose creation is motivated solely by the opening of the third cluster and the promised funds from the European Commission’s growth plan for the Western Balkans,” says Saša Mirković from the Association of Independent Electronic Media (ANEM) to Radar.

The withdrawal of candidates and proposers, for the second time in six months, indicates not only a deep crisis of trust in institutions and processes that should guarantee media pluralism and freedom of expression in Serbia but is also an act of protest motivated by the desire to highlight irregularities, namely to challenge the legitimacy of the process and demand a more transparent and lawful election. Will this fatal outcome, as in February, affect the conclusion of the process? It is hard to expect, given the dispersed attention and energy of the public on various problematic issues in society, but also the significance of forming a new REM Council for formally fulfilling our obligations to the European Union, related to the delivery of financial resources to Serbia for this "successfully" completed task.

If the initiated procedure is concluded and a new REM Council is voted on in the National Assembly, the best that can be expected is the continuation of the simulation of reform processes and the retention of REM in the role of guardian of the regime's interests, rather than the public's interests.

The Association of (Pro-Regime) Journalists of Serbia – Continuing the Production of Parallel Realities

Parallel to the process of delegitimizing the election of the new REM Council, news emerged about the establishment of the Association of Journalists of Serbia (ANS), an association that, judging by the list of initiators and prominent members, gathers editors and journalists known for their uncritical reporting, work largely unburdened by professional ethics, notable engagement in pro-regime media, and open support for Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić. In light of the unprecedented socio-political crisis in Serbia and the prominent role of instrumentalized media in controlling it, the launch of ANS indicates an additional attempt to consolidate the media space in favor of the authorities.

The establishment of ANS, according to available information, has gathered 135 pro-government journalists and editors, predominantly from tabloid print and electronic media. The list of names that currently publicly stand behind ANS is incompatible with its "manifesto," which cites parts of the Serbian Journalists' Code—especially considering it was published by a tabloid that, according to the Press Council's data, violated that same Code more than 1,300 times in the last six months of the previous year. The structure of publicly known members of the Association directs thoughts about the goals of launching such an organization. For starters—legitimization of pro-government media, by creating yet another "professional" organization that represents journalists, thereby positioning pro-government media and their actors as legitimate participants in the media space. It is not unimaginable that ANS might become a "representative" body that the authorities will use in dialogues and processes with international organizations, thus creating an impression of inclusivity and objectivity while marginalizing numerous independent associations known for their critical stances towards the authorities. By involving compliant, government-affiliated organizations like ANS in processes related to media reforms, the authorities would demonstrate a superficial commitment to the interests and standards of the "professional" media and journalistic community, while simultaneously amortizing and suppressing strong and ongoing appeals from independent journalistic associations for substantial reform of the media sector. This is particularly significant in the context of negotiations with the EU, where Serbia must show progress in Chapter 23 (Judiciary and Fundamental Rights), which includes freedom of expression. ANS could serve as a "facade" for dialogue, while real reforms remain absent. Equally important is the further control over financial resources.

ANS could become yet another channel for directing public funds towards pro-government media through competitions for projects of public interest. For years, local media close to the government have often received financial support through non-transparent competitions, while independent media face financial pressures. The launch of such an association also indicates a desire to further strengthen the parallel system that will contribute to the marginalization of independent journalists. ANS could very easily become a desirable participant in numerous regulatory processes, such as the election of a new REM Council or the commission for allocating media funds. This would neutralize the influence of established associations that withdraw from cooperation with the authorities due to the feigning of democratic processes. Finally, the establishment of the Association further intensifies pressure on independent journalists, who face campaigns of insults, threats, censorship, and legal prosecution. ANS may serve as a platform for discrediting critical voices, but also for coordinated media propaganda.

Control of the Media Market and Manipulation of Reality

These two events—the massive violation of procedures during the election process for the REM Council and the establishment of ANS—may have a common goal: consolidating control over the media market and further manipulating public perception of reality. The withdrawal of independent candidates ensures that REM remains under the influence of the authorities in the future, continuing the absence of oversight over pro-government media that violate professional standards, such as spreading disinformation or promoting hate speech. On the other hand, ANS provides a platform for legitimizing pro-government journalists and editors, allowing them greater influence over the media narrative and access to resources, including public funds intended for media.

Such moves directly threaten the already barely existing media pluralism and media freedoms in Serbia. The prolongation of REM's control allows the authorities to continue favoring media that promote the regime's narrative without hindrance, while the establishment of ANS further strengthens the network of loyal media actors who can dominate public discourse. All together, this continues the creation of an environment in which the image of reality is shaped through selective reporting, marginalization of critical voices, and financial discrimination against independent media.

Consequences for the Media Market and Society

Both of these events, perhaps somewhat overlooked in the swirl of protest activities, can have far-reaching consequences. The media market will become even more polarized, and the public will continue to lose access to objective information from a variety of sources. The most accessible media, such as those with national coverage or prioritized by state cable operators, will continue to serve as "producers of meaning" that promote the regime's narrative rather than reflect reality.

Source: Radar