Press Advisory: The Republika Portal conducted a campaign against journalist Vuk Cvijić in 19 articles.

The lawyers of Vuk Cvijić filed a complaint regarding a total of 19 articles published from May 29 of last year to March 27 of this year. They stated that on May 29 of last year, Milan Lađević, one of the owners of the publisher Republika (the portal of the daily newspaper Srpski telegraf), attacked Vuk Cvijić, which led to a criminal charge being filed against him.

The prosecution dismissed the charge, explaining that there was no criminal act of violent behavior. However, it undisputedly established, based on camera footage, that Lađević attacked and struck Cvijić, as evidenced by the resolutions from two prosecutors' offices.

Despite this, the portal claims in all 19 articles that Cvijić attacked Lađević. Furthermore, the disputed articles contain a range of insulting qualifications about Vuk Cvijić and rhetoric of hate speech, portraying him as a person who lies, exaggerates, and attacks colleagues, while insisting that what he and all who support him say is political propaganda from a "tycoon journalist," "Šolak's media," and the "machine of lies of Cvijić and the weekly Radar." According to the complainants, such writing violated numerous points of the Code.

The members of the Appeals Commission assessed that the complaint was well-founded, stating that the manner in which Republika reported on this case was completely unacceptable and contrary to basic professional and ethical principles. A highly dirty campaign against the complainant was conducted for several months due to a physical altercation with one of the owners of the company that owns the portal against which the complaint was filed, as noted in the rationale of the Press Council's decision.

"The portal continuously reported in the interest of its owner Milan Lađević, in a manner that resulted in inaccurate, biased, and incomplete informing of the public. For months, the media insisted solely on the version of events presented by Lađević, suppressing all information that did not support his claims and persistently unfoundedly accusing Cvijić of lying. This violated nearly all provisions from the chapter on the Truthfulness of Reporting," the Appeals Commission's assessment emphasizes.

They added that the editorial team completely disregarded the public interest and accountability during the months-long "monitoring" of the proceedings before the prosecution, subordinating them to the interests of its publisher.

"At the same time, the complainant was insulted, belittled, and completely unacceptable rhetoric was used against him, intentionally damaging his reputation and standing. Republika wrote in the same way about other individuals who supported Cvijić, all with the aim of discrediting them and presenting a one-sided version of events that suits one of the actors, directly linked to the reporting media," it further states.

Considering that the publication of such a large number of articles, which repeatedly reiterate the same accusations and insults against Cvijić and the same one-sided interpretation of events, undoubtedly indicates a campaign, or a continuous malicious undermining of the reputation of the person being reported on, the Commission did not decide on violations of the Code in each individual article but viewed them as a whole and made a unified decision for all articles submitted with the complaint that were published as part of that campaign.

The assessment highlights that the portal Republika violated points of the Code related to the obligation of journalists to report accurately, impartially, completely, and in a timely manner on events of public interest, adhering to the basic journalistic standards established by the Code, making a clear distinction between the facts they convey and comments, assumptions, and speculations, as well as the provision that suppressing facts that could significantly affect public opinion on an event is equivalent to their intentional distortion or dissemination of falsehoods, along with the incompatible publication of unfounded accusations, defamation, and rumors.

Provisions were also violated whereby the economic and political interests of the publisher must not affect editorial policy in a way that results in inaccurate, biased, incomplete, and untimely informing of the public, as well as those stipulating that journalists are obliged to act in the public interest and, in accordance with professional norms, publish facts necessary for citizens to make informed decisions, nurture the culture and ethics of public discourse, and refrain from using hate speech, aggressive rhetoric, or rhetoric that may incite discrimination or aggressive behavior.

The series of articles also violated the provision requiring journalists to respect the principle of not causing harm to the reputation and dignity of individuals and to refrain from participating in the spread of falsehoods or the continuous malicious undermining of the reputation of the persons they report on.