Journalists from local editorial offices are primarily threatened in the digital environment by party members and publicly accused by officials.

62.1% of survey participants stated that the greatest threat comes from members of political parties who do not hold high positions, while 13.8% believe it is officials who pose the threat. 3.4% say that it is citizens who are not members of any political party, while the remainder provided vague answers and did not clearly define the social group that is most involved in this behavior.

The survey titled "Safety of Local Journalists in the Digital World" included journalists from 29 local newsrooms across Serbia.

When asked whether they had experienced situations in which their digital safety was threatened due to reporting on student protests, nearly half of the participants responded affirmatively.

Specifically, 37.9% of participants reported that their digital safety had been threatened multiple times, 34.5% said their safety had never been compromised in this context, 17.2% stated they had not reported on student protests at all, 6.9% indicated that their digital safety had been threatened once due to this, while 3.4% claimed their digital safety was compromised due to unbiased reporting unrelated to students.

Those whose digital safety was threatened due to reporting on student protests were asked to describe what exactly happened. Several participants reported death threats, insults, and comments during protest coverage, as well as a specific physical attack. Such situations lead to a genuine feeling of fear, insecurity, and vulnerability, especially when online threats transition into an offline context, they conveyed.

Journalists are often labeled as "foreign mercenaries," "traitors," "pamphleteers," or political activists. This type of targeting aims to discredit professional work, further intensifying pressure and creating an atmosphere of hostility. It is particularly significant that some of these labels originated from protest participants or political structures, thereby acquiring institutional weight.

Some responses indicate the consequences of targeting: local authorities have ceased inviting journalists to official events, creating a sense of institutional isolation and disrupting the professional functioning of newsrooms. This points to a broader pressure that exceeds mere online insults.

In addition to verbal attacks, technical incidents have been recorded—hacking of websites, organized negative comments, and threats via direct messages or emails. Some newsrooms have expressed concern over potentially unstable or unprotected infrastructure, especially in the context of potential biased attacks.

When asked, "Do you believe you are well-informed about what constitutes a threat to journalists' safety in the digital world?", 48.3% answered yes, 37.9% no, and 13.8% were unsure. To the question, "Do you believe your safety in the digital world has ever been compromised due to your media work?", 48.3% replied that it might have been, but they weren't sure; 44.5% said their safety in the digital world had been compromised multiple times, 3.4% that it had been compromised once, while only 3.4% said their digital safety had never been threatened.

When asked to specify what had happened that they considered a threat to their digital safety due to their journalism work, journalists provided varied responses.

A significant number of respondents reported receiving death threats, calls for lynching, announcements of physical attacks, as well as comments suggesting a possibility of a "visit" to the newsroom. Some received threats via messages, while others through calls from hidden numbers. This represents the gravest form of digital safety infringement.

Insults in comments were frequent, including derogatory nicknames, misogynistic content, and accusations that journalists are politically biased or unprofessional. Some noted coordinated campaigns of leaving bad reviews or negative comments, indicating organized attacks.

One respondent reported a serious incident—creation of a fake Facebook profile with the media's logo and false representation as a journalist, misleading citizens and causing them to share information with the wrong person.

Profiles were frequently reported en masse to have them removed or blocked. One media outlet lost its Facebook page for several days. When asked, "Have you ever seen negative comments on the website or social media of the media you work for that insult the media or journalist due to ethical journalism?", 79.3% of participants answered "yes, multiple times," 10.3% answered "yes, once," 6.9% answered "no, never," and 3.4% answered "I don't know, I don't pay attention."

To the question, "Have you ever been personally insulted in comments due to your ethical journalism work?", 51.7% said "yes, multiple times," 24.1% answered "no, never," 17.2% answered "yes, once," while 6.9% said they did not want to answer this question.

When asked, "Have you ever received a threat via direct message because you conducted your journalism work ethically?", 48.3% answered "no, never," 24.1% answered "yes, multiple times," 17.2% answered "yes, once," while 10.3% did not wish to respond.

Those who had such experiences were encouraged by researchers to write about how they felt. Numerous survey participants reported feeling uncomfortable, disturbed, or "horrified," especially when messages contained threats of death, beatings, arrest, rape, or other forms of physical violence. Such comments and messages created a sense of fear and insecurity, as they crossed the boundary of "ordinary" online violence and entered the realm of direct threats.

INSULTS, DISPUTE OF PROFESSIONAL INTEGRITY, ACCUSATIONS OF BIAS, AND LABELS LIKE "MERCENARY" OR "ILLITERATE"

It is common for insults, disputes of professional integrity, accusations of bias, or labels like "mercenary" or "illiterate" to evoke feelings of frustration, discomfort, and demotivation. It is particularly challenging when attacks originate from political actors, local officials, or organized groups, which further intensifies the sense of injustice and pressure, participants conveyed.

Among some respondents, there is an attempt at emotional distancing—some state they "do not pay attention" to insults or that they have become accustomed to such comments. Yet, despite this distance, responses indicate that insults and threats leave a mark, as it is mentioned that "no one appreciates" this form of communication, even when there is no conscious reaction to it.

When prompted to write how they feel in response to the question: “In the digital world (on your website, social media of your media outlet, your personal profile), you feel:”, 55.2% of survey participants answered that they feel neither safe nor threatened; 13.8% feel threatened, 13.8% do not think about safety in the digital world, 13.8% feel safe, while 3.4% do not know how to respond to this question.

To the question: "When you see a new comment on the website or social media of the media outlet you work for, do you immediately think that something has happened: ", 44.8% say they do not think anything, 41.4% think that something negative has happened, 10.3% think that something positive has happened, and 3.4% say they feel nothing because they are used to it.

To the question: "Does publishing on the website/social media evoke a feeling in you: ", 48.8% say it evokes a feeling of negative uncertainty, 31% say it evokes no feeling, 6.9% say it evokes a feeling of positive uncertainty, while the remainder says it depends on what is published, and 3.4% say it evokes a feeling that they are doing what they love.

To the question: "Do you believe that journalists in the digital environment are primarily threatened by: ", 62.1% answered that it is members of political parties who do not hold high positions, 13.8% say it is officials, 3.4% say it is citizens who are not members of any political party, while the remainder provided vague answers and did not clearly define the social group that is most involved in this behavior.

THE MAJORITY DO NOT REPORT DIGITAL THREATS

To the question: "If your digital safety has ever been compromised in your career, did you report it to the relevant authorities?", 48.3% did not report, 24.1% say that their digital safety has never been compromised, so they had nothing to report, while 17.2% reported to their journalistic association, and 10.3% reported to the police.

When asked why they did not report threats to their safety in the digital world, journalists provided various responses. Many respondents perceive threats as "empty stories," insults, or something that does not cross the threshold of serious risk. Due to such perceptions, incidents are deemed not worth reporting, thus remaining unaddressed. There is a clear sense of institutional helplessness or distrust—some respondents explicitly state that they do not trust institutions or that "there is no one to complain to."

This attitude indicates a deeply rooted belief that a formal report will not lead to concrete protection. For some, the reason is practical—reporting requires time, energy, and a procedure that respondents feel is too demanding compared to the potential benefits. This indicates a perceived inefficiency of the reporting process. We asked journalists who reported safety threats how institutions responded and whether they were satisfied with the institutions' reactions.

The most common pattern is a complete inefficiency of the system: reports are submitted, but there is no feedback ("we have not received a response to any report submitted so far," "none"). This creates a sense of institutional passivity and discourages further reporting. In some cases, certain procedures were initiated (e.g., a letter from the journalistic association, a call from the prosecutor's office to confirm the report), but respondents emphasize that nothing substantive was resolved by this. Insults remain unpunished, and institutional interventions are perceived as formal, without real outcomes.

Several responses express immediate dissatisfaction ("I was not satisfied," "I thought the job was done"), indicating a loss of trust in protection mechanisms and a feeling that institutions are not fulfilling their function.

To the question: "Do you know what the procedures are for reporting threats to safety in the digital world?", 41.4% answered "yes, I am fully informed about the procedures," 34.5% are partially familiar with the procedures, 13.8% know the basics about the procedures, while 10.3% are not familiar with the procedures at all.

Source: JugPress