Representatives of some authorities should provide evidence for the claims that the protests of the informal student group "Kamo śutra" are politically instrumentalized and that they are also linked to criminal structures.
The guests of tonight's show "Sunday in the Rearview Mirror" on Television Vijesti agree on this.
The guests of the show were: editor-in-chief of "Vijesti" Mihailo Jovović, vice president of the Media Union and member of the Council of Radio and Television of Montenegro Marijana Camović Velicković, assistant editor-in-chief of "Dan" Mili Prelević, and executive director and editor-in-chief of "Pobjeda" Nenad Zečević.
The host of the show, Tatjana Ašanin, said that she had also invited Bojan Terzić, the editor of the first program of Television of Montenegro, to be a guest. He said that he would not be in Podgorica for the weekend and that no one else was interested in coming to the show.
She asked what the media must do to prevent inappropriate politicization of the current protests.
She recalled that Interior Minister Danilo Šaranović claims that, based on operational data, the protests are being politically instrumentalized and are being linked to criminal structures.
Jovović said that Šaranović was obliged to announce something more than those claims.
"If you say something, you need to prove it. Protests are completely legitimate, it's a constitutional right. Who is organizing them, we have students who claim that they are organizing them, we have no other evidence, including the minister's operational data, whether someone is instrumentalizing these protests."
He says that information released by the Government should not be lightly dismissed, but neither should it be published.
"We see on social media that someone was at the protest, among them there are people suspected or accused of some criminal offenses, but these people are free, they can protest, no one can forbid anyone. But, is anyone participating in the organization, if the minister said he has operational information, I will be happy to publish it if they provide it to us, after I check it."
Prelević said he thinks there are more citizens at the protests than the police claim.
"After the first information released by the government and one party, that these were politically motivated protests, we tried to get the real information - who, how... We found out nothing," he said, explaining that he was talking about the government. "We called young people, they gave us the information properly."
He says the government thinks it's enough to "take a picture of someone who is a free man, even though they are under investigation," and say that someone came to the protests and that they were politically instructed. "If we want to find out, and if the government doesn't give us that evidence, how can I ask for it?"
Zečević said that the Democrats did not present any evidence for their claims.
"What we have come to, because we have communication with the students, is that they independently make decisions about organizing protests. It is no secret that political parties and the groups around them are trying to influence these protests, but all the key decisions are made by the students themselves."
He says that the key evidence for this is that the protests are massive. "When citizens realize that the protests have been taken over by the parties or some elements behind them, the protests will no longer be massive."
Camović Velicković said that if the Government had any evidence that someone else was behind the protests, it would find a way to put it in the media.
"It's possible they're being tactical, but for now we have a faint attempt at obstruction."
The state has ways to check the operations of media outlets with one or a few employees, but it does not do so.
The topic of tonight's show was Montenegrin and regional media reporting on the mass murder in Cetinje on January 1st.
Camović Velicković assessed that the first channel of Television of Montenegro "covered that day quite well."
"The bigger problem was the portal, they changed headlines a lot that didn't reflect the essence of the events, they came out with unofficial data, their own findings, which turned out to be incorrect, so they changed it. I don't think they needed that part. I think they behaved correctly on television, like other mainstream media, and reported without causing additional panic and the like."
He says that the problem, "which is also a problem of the Public Service Broadcasting Service", is how they later responded to that problem and event, and that is the choice of interlocutors they had later, when the events were covered through the programs.
"The reason why this is so and why there were some fairly anonymous people who did not explain the spectacular things is that fear, we all know the political influence that exists when it comes to the Public Service. The choice of interlocutors also reflected the fear of who will be offended by whom and how far they can go, what is appropriate to say without offending someone. This fear that drives them significantly degrades the quality of the program, then, and in general," said Camović Večičković.
Ašanin asked Jovović, Prelević and Zečević what their media did to ensure that reporting on the event in Cetinje and its indirect consequences "does not slide into untruth and cheap propaganda."
Jovović said that "Vijesti" did what they always do.
"We filtered the information we received twice as much as we normally do. Comments were removed immediately. The first news was that there had been a murder in Cetinje. When it turned out that it was not an 'ordinary' murder, we decided to remove comments, because that was the easiest thing we could do."
He said that commenting would be prohibited as long as there were stories about the event, "precisely because of the things that were happening on other portals, regional media."
"Such an event requires at least that. We covered everything properly, because our journalists and editors have excellent sources on all sides, in the police, in Cetinje and other places and in other institutions, especially in the security sector. I am satisfied with how we did it that night. As for the other days, we dealt with that story every day, for about 15 days, in various ways, investigating what happened, whether it was true what the authorities say happened or not... We just did what we always do."
Prelević said that "Dan" also removed comments, already with the first change in information, because they did not know what could happen in the comments and did not want to contribute to alarming citizens, or "hurt someone."
"We were very often in a situation where we sometimes did not publish 'good', accurate information, because cooperation with the security authorities in Cetinje was a bit reserved on their part. We had a situation where at one point we did not know how many people were killed, we did not bid on it, we even sometimes fell behind in the information about the number of dead, because we were guided by the fact that it is better not to have fresh information than to have the wrong one. I am satisfied with how we did it."
He believes that "the big media in Montenegro" did a very good job that evening.
Zečević said that they received information that a new mass murder had occurred shortly before the police officially announced it, and that they had been regularly reporting on all aspects of the tragedy.
"I don't think the problem is the comments on portals, under the articles, but the far bigger problem was the comments on social networks, under those articles. The Montenegrin media generally did the whole job professionally, I mean the key, mainstream media."
Ašanin said that among the Montenegrin media there were those who pointed to, as she paraphrased, "a religious curse from the native Cetinje and the sick Cetinje people", while others, through statements from obscure organizations, labeled the murder as a "St. Sava ritual massacre", with equally scandalous columns.
She asked how it was possible that the state, even after amendments to media laws, had not found a mechanism to make the survival of such "media dens" impossible.
Jovović said he thinks such mechanisms exist.
"There is a prosecutor's office that should initiate proceedings for every such text or column. I see that you are skeptical, but they don't do it. That is their job. I'm not saying that other mechanisms shouldn't be found, but the mechanisms that already exist are almost never used. How many cases of lawsuits you have for hate speech, that is incredible, it exists in the Criminal Code. How many cases of lawsuits you have for inciting panic, a criminal offense... there is none of that. Why is it not being used, that is the key question," he said.
Zečević said that a far bigger problem was the reporting of Belgrade tabloids, which published some information that "ultimately turned out to be accurate."
"Imagine when a Belgrade tabloid publishes information about what the killer said to his sister before he killed her. I mean that the Belgrade tabloids were well 'hooked' to the top of the police, from where they got certain information."
He said he had evidence for that.
"Some of the data turned out to be accurate, and some not," said Zečević, to which Jovović responded that "90 percent turned out to be incorrect."
Marijana Camović Velicković said that there is no way to oblige the media to register and that this is a problem.
"The only thing that has been successful is that they are restricted from having access to state money if they are not registered. That is a punishment like for example for Udar, it is not a punishment at all for a media outlet that was not even founded to work in the public interest, but to complete the role for which it was founded."
It is true, he says, that there are a large number of tabloid media outlets in the region, but that it is a matter of "what you are exposed to". "They don't appear to me, it is a matter of what you are exposed to and the way you think and what you consider to be media".
Prelević assessed that tabloid media do not have much influence.
"People who do this from the region, they have no responsibility towards Montenegro and they don't care what they publish, nor do they care towards their readers. All the information they published in those days, we all received here in some way, so we didn't publish it."
Zečević recalled that the tabloids had obtained a video from the tavern where four people were later killed, taken a few hours before the event.
Jovović and Prelević said that they also received the recording, but that it was decided not to publish it.
"It's important because of the people who died and their families. The information that these people, together with the future murderer, were at some celebration, already existed in the media. That footage somehow shows that, it doesn't say anything new. If we published it, we would have a million views, but that's not the purpose of journalism," said Jovović.
"Many of the people in that video are no longer alive, they have families of their own. What would it mean for those families if, even by chance, they saw what was happening," he added.
Zečević said he was interested in who provided the footage to the Serbian tabloid.
Prelević said that some Montenegrin media outlets had written "badly and dishonestly" about the tragedy in Cetinje. "A mechanism must be found that will determine what the media in Montenegro are, to register all those who are unregistered..."
Jovović explained how the state "can stand in the way" of this.
"The Media Union's 2023 report on media operations shows that these media outlets, as well as some others, have one, two or five employees, or none at all. The state needs to check how and where these people operate, how many people actually work there, are there inspections? Either that one employee is a 'superman' who does quantitatively what Vijesti does with about 100 employees, or Dan, Pobjeda... or that man is a 'superman', or there are more people working there illegally, who do not pay taxes to the state. There are ways, but the state does not deal with it."
Camović Velicković pointed out that the state is giving money from the fund for supporting media pluralism to "a large number of media outlets that have zero, one, two, three employees."
Ašanin also asked whether the media, at this moment, is perhaps still too focused on the security aspect of this case, and less is being investigated about the responsibility of the courts, prosecutors, and health institutions, and whether this may be a task in the coming period...
Jovović said that "Vijesti" dealt with all aspects, that the situation when it comes to mental health, the situation in the security sector...
"The most important thing, besides the fact that it was the holidays, is that it is very difficult to find competent people to immediately speak about something that happened, as you probably all know."
Prelević said that they tried to find interlocutors. "What happened in Cetinje now and two years ago could happen in any city in Montenegro. This is the problem of this country, not one city. The biggest problem is the lack of competent people who will speak clearly about it."
Zečević said that in a column two days after the mass murder, he asked three questions, and that there are still no answers - what was the motive, who gave the killer the weapon, and how is it possible that the killer "in 27 minutes, according to the first version, crossed a five-kilometer perimeter and killed 12 people in five different locations."
"That's impossible, it's not even possible in movies. Unfortunately, when it comes to security and the prosecutorial aspect, we still don't have an answer to those three key questions."
He said that the protests were completely right to demand the minister's resignation.
The biggest problem is that citizens will be deprived of budget information.
Speaking about the blockade of the Assembly session, whose agenda includes the discussion and adoption of the budget, Prelević said that a solution must be found, and quickly, because the adoption of the budget is a very important matter.
"The opposition can always block parliament, but when it comes to the budget, they should have at least expressed their opinion on the budget and said something more about it. However, it is legitimate what they are doing and that the government is giving more importance to the fact that the budget was not voted on than it actually is."
Prelević assessed that both the government and the opposition are currently acting irresponsibly towards citizens.
"Waiting for the Venice Commission is pointless, it is already a matter of the sovereignty of a state, do we have to wait for people from outside to solve problems that are completely solvable, we just need to sit down and negotiate. I sometimes have the impression, and I have no evidence for it, that this situation suits both the government and the opposition."
When asked how this could suit the government, he says that he does not believe that "this budget is good."
Zečević said that the budget can be voted on and that dialogue is necessary.
He said he understands the opposition's reasons for its current behavior. "We had unconstitutional behavior by the Constitutional Committee, which took over the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court. We also had such an explicit position from the European Union, which said through its spokesperson that this was an act that was not in accordance with the Constitution. However, the opposition's continued behavior, which is essentially blocking the adoption of the budget, is not good."
He says that the budget should be adopted first, and then the government and the opposition can negotiate on other contentious issues - negotiations with Croatia, reform of the electoral system... "Dialogue is the best solution at this moment."
Zečević said that "the opposition can walk away from parliament," and that the ruling majority "has almost two-thirds" and can vote on the budget.
Prelević reminded that the opposition must be present at the vote.
"Colleague Prelević is right, in those measures that the Speaker of the Parliament can propose, he can remove them from the parliamentary session, but according to the Rules of Procedure, he must allow them to vote," said Zečević.
Ašanin asked whether the solution, if the opposition comes to vote and obstructs the work of parliament again, could be for them to be able to vote from their parliamentary groups.
Jovović said that this business opportunity does not exist.
"The biggest problem is that citizens, except for us who study the budget a little more deeply, will be deprived of information about the budget if the opposition and the government exchange arguments," he pointed out.
He says he has the impression that the opposition is not sure what to do.
"Let me get back to the vote - when it came to the controversial confirmation of Ms. Đuranović's mandate, the opposition was in front with whistles, vuvuzelas, and shouting, and Mr. Mandić read the conclusion of the Constitutional Committee and the session ended. I think they can also adopt the budget," said Jovović.
He says that the procedure that terminated the mandate of Constitutional Court judge Dragana Đuranović is "obviously unconstitutional" and that the government, if it wanted to, could overturn that decision.
He pointed out that any body that makes a decision can also annul it. "It can end in several ways, but it seems there is no will."
Marijana Camović Velicković agreed that dialogue would be the best solution, but that "we are not a society of dialogue" and that this cannot be expected.
"It has long been clear to citizens what we can expect from this kind of structure, both in power and in opposition. They haven't set any high standards, so now they've shattered some of our illusions."
She said that she expected more creativity and knowledge from the people from the Europe Now Movement, "who present themselves as economic wizards." "They already don't know how to navigate the current situation, where there is no voted budget, let alone have a projection of what Montenegro will look like in six months, given that we don't have an economy, if in some worst-case scenario we don't have a budget by then."
"The trial for the Bioča accident is a farce"
Nineteen years since the train accident on Bioč, which killed 47 and injured more than 200 people, were marked on January 23rd.
Jovović said that Bioče is "that canopy of Novi Sad for us." The collapse of a canopy at the Novi Sad railway station on November 1, 2024, killed 15 people.
"There will be many other things after him that show that little is being done here systematically, in the way it should be done. Trying so many people, and only one man who was driving the train is responsible, I think is a farce."
Whether something can be done, he says, is a question primarily for lawyers.
"The Assembly can always do something, create a committee of inquiry to review it. I don't remember anyone thinking of doing that, neither the former opposition and now the government, nor the former government and now the opposition."
Ašanin asked how it was possible that in 2006 "no one raised their voice against the death of 47 people and the obvious chaos in the Railways, which probably resulted in such a tragedy," and said that she did not want to "speculate in the worst way."
"You see it's possible," Jovovich said.
The presenter then asked, "What happened to us, if the government wasn't the one who was ready to take responsibility?"
"It was what happened in many other situations when it was necessary to raise one's voice and stand up, to protest. I'm not saying that there weren't any protests, but for a long time very few people spoke out publicly against what the authorities were saying. It was like that for a long time. That's exactly why I say that it was our Novi Sad umbrella and that it should have been done then," said Jovović.
Marijana Camović Velicković said that the resignation of then-Minister Andrija Lompar, "which is mentioned as some exclusive act," never actually happened, because the Government rejected the resignation and that he was again in the same position in the next Government.
"So, from that resignation and any sense of responsibility, both then and today, both with that specific man and in society in general, there is nothing."
She said that the families of the victims should be heard and what should be done for them.
"It's shameful that only the train driver was held accountable, that 11 people were acquitted, that no one resigned, that they bore responsibility... It's shameful that they boasted about the severance money later, Savo Parača kept quiet and took that money, and later was just transferred to another position," she said.
He believes that the citizens were "completely anesthetized" at the time.
"There was no civic awareness to say all together - wait, we can take to the streets because of this, we need to demand someone's responsibility for this," said Camović Velicković.
Jovović, referring to the current state of the trains and the railway, said that no one can guarantee that a similar tragedy will not happen again.
Zečević said that the court established the objective liability of the train driver and that this must be taken as a fact, but that it did not take into account the so-called subjective liability of the system.
"One of the causes of the tragedy is also that the rail transport system was in absolute disarray. I think the court did not take that seriously. If new evidence emerges, and the testimonies of the people in the documentary are new evidence, I think that is sufficient grounds to possibly initiate new court proceedings."
Prelević said that journalists should constantly open up this story.
"I'm afraid that 47 dead, 220 injured, then one massacre in Cetinje, then another... that somehow in our heads it turns into statistics, and that's terrible. We are too small a society to remain immune to these victims, and we do nothing to prevent it from happening again."
That's why, he says, it's good that citizens are now demanding that something change.
"It's not good that this wasn't requested then, 19 years ago, but we have to do something and not leave these families to fight everything on their own. The state must do everything to prevent these things from happening, and then do everything to help our fellow citizens in every way, to make it as easy as possible," said Prelević.
Zečević assessed that by establishing a "compensation fund", the state would show that it cares about the victims of accidents. "Because we have an objective state responsibility both when it comes to Bioča and when it comes to the two massacres in Cetinje."
Bonus video:
