Members of Serbia's Regulatory Authority for Electronic Media (REM) described as government representatives have again voted against initiating proceedings against 13 media outlets, despite documented complaints and recommendations from the regulator's own professional staff, REM Council member Rodoljub Sabic said.
Oglas
In a written statement reported by the Beta news agency, Šabić said REM Council President Stevica Smederevac had convened an electronic session on Friday, October 16, which he described as being held away from public scrutiny.
The agenda included 13 proposals to initiate examination proceedings against media outlets suspected of violating standards established by Serbia's Electronic Media Law.
"This time, too, government representatives voted against initiating examination proceedings against all 13 media outlets, despite documented and substantiated complaints having been filed against each of them," Sabic said.
He argued that such decisions had become a recurring practice when complaints involved broadcasters with strongly pro-government programming.
"Unfortunately, this is nothing unusual. It has become standard practice when it comes to media outlets broadcasting explicitly pro-government content," he said.
Sabic accused the council members concerned of demonstrating a continued unwillingness to contribute to REM's independent functioning or uphold legally prescribed broadcasting standards.
He also said their votes contradicted the findings of REM's own Monitoring and Analysis Department.
According to Sabic, the department had examined the disputed broadcasts and submitted reasoned recommendations for initiating formal proceedings.
"Government representatives also voted against all the findings of their own professional service," he said.
He added that none of the council members he described as government representatives had supported opening proceedings in cases where REM's monitoring staff had identified violations of laws or regulations and recommended further examination.
The allegations raise questions about the regulator's ability to enforce broadcasting standards independently, particularly when dealing with media outlets supportive of the government.
The votes concerned whether to initiate examination proceedings, not final decisions establishing that the outlets had violated the law.
The material reported by Beta did not identify all 13 media outlets or include responses from the council members criticised by Sabic.
Teme