Studentski i omladinski mediji u Srbiji: Za mnoge prvi teren nije konferencija, već protest

Autori: Jana Jacić i Marko Tadić  Izvor: ANEM i Centar za razvoj lokalnih medija

Uvod

Studentski i omladinski mediji u Srbiji zauzimaju specifično mesto na medijskoj sceni.  

Oni istovremeno pokušavaju da informišu, okupljaju mladu publiku, obrađuju teme  koje tradicionalni mediji često zanemaruju i rade u organizacionim okvirima koji su češće  projektni, neformalni i resursno ograničeni nego stabilni i institucionalizovani.  

Ovaj izveštaj nastao je na osnovu intervjua sa novinarima i novinarkama:  

Irena Pejić (Mašina), Lazar Ranđelović (Tebra), Marko Živković (Revolt), Milica  Marković i Lana Stanisavljević (Youth Vibes), Miljana Jovanović (Mingl), Nemanja Marinović  (Zoomer), Jovan Živković (Pressing), Snežana Katunac (Oblakoder), Katarina Aleksandrović (Studentski dnevni list), Andrijana Martačić, Milica Stevanović, Tijana Doroški i Marko Antić  (Univerzitetski odjek), Žarko Bogosavljević (Razglas news), kao i sa Milicom Borjanić,  generalnom sekretarkom Krovne organizacije mladih Srbije (KOMS). 

Izveštaj ne obuhvata samo formalno studentske i omladinske medije, već i redakcije  koje su, po svom sadržaju, publici, sastavu tima ili terenskom radu, relevantne za  razumevanje položaja mladih novinara, omladinskih redakcija i medija koji prate studentske  i omladinske teme.

Opšta procena bezbednosti

Sagovornici iz studentskih, omladinskih i mladih nezavisnih medija različito ocenjuju  nivo bezbednosti novinara, ali se u njihovim odgovorima ponavlja nekoliko zajedničkih  obrazaca: osećaj nedovoljne institucionalne zaštite, zavisnost bezbednosti od teme i terena,  kao i rastući rizici tokom izveštavanja sa protesta, studentskih okupljanja i izbornih procesa. 

Ocene bezbednosti u razgovorima kreću se od jedan do tri, uz izuzetak pojedinih  redakcija koje navode da same do sada nisu bile direktno napadnute, ali opšte stanje u  medijskom okruženju ocenjuju kao izrazito loše. 

Predstavnici Univerzitetskog odjeka bezbednost studentskih medija u Novom Sadu ocenjuju najnižom ocenom. Andrijana Martačić navodi da bi, kada je reč o studentskim  medijima, dala ocenu jedan, jer oni „nisu formalno toliko zaštićeni u odnosu na neke veće  medije”. Milica Stevanović se saglašava sa tom ocenom i dodaje da studentski mediji nemaju  adekvatnu zaštitu „osim nas samih”. Marko Antić iz Univerzitetskog odjeka položaj  studentskih novinara opisuje kao dvostruku izloženost: 

Imamo kao studentski medij bukvalno duple mete na glavama, jer smo u isto  vreme i studenti i mediji i novinari. 

Sličnu procenu daje i Miljana Jovanović sa portala Mingl, iako ističe da njihovi dopisnici  nisu imali direktne probleme tokom izveštavanja. ali kada govori o širem medijskom  okruženju, bezbednost procenjuje najnižom ocenom i poziva se na tretman kolega iz drugih  redakcija. 

Milica Borjanić iz KOMS-a takođe ocenjuje bezbednost novinara i novinarki ocenom  jedan. Ona ukazuje da rizik kod mladih nije ograničen samo na neposrednu pretnju osobi  koja izveštava, već se preliva na porodicu i lokalnu zajednicu: 

Mladi ljudi posebno su ranjivi u manjim sredinama zato što, ukoliko njih neko  vidi da izveštavaju, njihovi roditelji će dobiti otkaz, njima će biti razbijen telefon… 

Prema njenoj oceni, kod mladih postoji snažan osećaj neslobode i nebezbednosti, jer  se posledice njihovog javnog angažmana mogu preliti i na porodicu, posao roditelja ili  svakodnevni život u lokalnoj zajednici. 

Kod drugih sagovornika procena je nešto viša, ali i dalje ukazuje na nesigurno  okruženje. Snežana Katunac iz Oblakodera bezbednost ocenjuje dvojkom, odnosno  „mršavom dvojkom”, obrazlažući to time da su pritisci sve veći i da je represija sve otvorenija,  iako još uvek postoji prostor da se važne priče čuju. 

Milica Marković i Lana Stanisavljević sa portala Youth Vibes bezbednost u Nišu ocenjuju srednjom ocenom (3) uz napomenu da je tokom intenzivnijih protesta situacija bila  znatno lošija, posebno za novinarke na terenu.  

Urednik portala Zoomer Nemanja Marinović, osvrćući se na iskustva sa lokalnih  izbora, ocenjuje da bezbednosna ocena „teško može biti viša od jedinice”. 

Iz razgovora proističe da se bezbednost studentskih i omladinskih medija ne može  meriti samo brojem incidenata koje je pretrpela pojedinačna redakcija. U više iskaza prisutna  je svest da odsustvo neposrednog napada ne znači i osećaj zaštićenosti, već često samo to  da se redakcija do sada nije našla u najrizičnijem trenutku, na najrizičnijem terenu ili pred  najkonfliktnijom temom. 

Pretnje, targetiranje i napadi

Iskustva sagovornika pokazuju da se pritisci na studentske, omladinske i mlade  nezavisne medije ne javljaju u jednom obliku. Kod pojedinih redakcija reč je pre svega o  onlajn uvredama, komentarima i targetiranju, dok druge redakcije svedoče o fizičkim  napadima, pokušajima oduzimanja opreme, praćenju, digitalnim napadima i pretnjama koje  ostaju bez institucionalnog epiloga. 

Pretnje i napadi koje sagovornici opisuju mogu se grubo podeliti u tri grupe: onlajn  targetiranje i pretnje, fizičko ugrožavanje na terenu i digitalni oblici pritiska.  

Najozbiljniji oblici ugrožavanja bezbednosti odnose se na izveštavanje sa protesta,  izbornih dana i drugih događaja visokog rizika. Sagovornici opisuju situacije u kojima su  novinari bili fizički napadnuti, gurani, okruženi, sprečavani da snimaju ili izloženi pokušajima  oduzimanja opreme. 

Milica Stevanović iz Univerzitetskog odjeka navodi da je bila fizički napadnuta ispred  Srpskog narodnog pozorišta tokom protesta na kojem su napadnuti i drugi novinari. Kako  kaže, bila je vidno obeležena pres prslukom i akreditacijom, ali je situacija eskalirala kada su  novinari krenuli da dokumentuju napad na grupu studenata. Prema njenom iskazu, novinari  su se našli u prostoru iz kojeg nisu mogli da se sklone, dok policija nije reagovala.  

U istom razgovoru Marko Antić opisuje specifičan rizik studentskih medija, navodeći  da je kao fotoreporter, iako je bio vidno obeležen kao press, bio targetiran na stranicama koje  su targetirale studente koji učestvuju u protestima. On to povezuje sa položajem studentskih  novinara koji su istovremeno i studenti i medijski radnici. 

Redakcija Zoomera navodi više slučajeva ugrožavanja novinara na terenu tokom  poslednjih godinu dana. Nemanja Marinović govori o napadima na novinare tokom protesta,  jurenju novinarke, udarcu policajca po ruci dok je snimala policijsku brutalnost, bacanju petardi na novinarku, suzavcu i evakuaciji u Novom Sadu, kao i hapšenju Darka Gligorijevića dok je izveštavao u Studentskom gradu. 

Novinari portala Mašina takođe opisuju učestale fizičke pritiske na terenu. Irena Pejić  navodi da su novinari Mašine, iako jasno obeleženi kao press, sa akreditacijama, prslucima  i šlemovima, često gurani, udarani ili gađani dok izveštavaju. Pejić navodi i sitaciju ispred  Narodne skupštine, kada su policijski službenici od nje tražili pristup telefonu i snimljenom  materijalu: 

Prvo su mi rekli: ‘Dajte telefon’. Onda kad sam rekla da ne dam telefon i da  nemaju pravo, rekli su: ‘Ne, ne, mi hoćemo samo da vidimo snimke i da ih obrišemo’. 

Takođe objašnjava da se deo pretnji nalazi u prostoru između očiglednog  zastrašivanja i uske pravne definicije pretnje: 

Doći će i vaš kraj. Ne kaže ‘ja ću vas eliminisati’, nego ‘doći će vaš kraj’. Mislim,  to je pretnja, ali u pravnom sistemu se tako ne definiše. 

Žarko Bogosavljević iz Razglas Newsa opisuje Novi Sad kao sredinu u kojoj su napadi  i nasrtaji na novinare postali učestaliji. Kao jedan od najtežih slučajeva navodi napad u  Stražilovskoj ulici, kada je grupa maskiranih mladića sa motkama napala kolonu, a on je dobio  udarac metalnom šipkom u glavu. Prema njegovim rečima, spaslo ga je to što je imao kacigu. 

U razgovoru sa članovima redakcije Youth Vibes navodi se primer komentara sa  5 oznakom kalibra metka nakon sadržaja o LGBT temama: 

Neko nam je u komentarima ostavio broj, kalibar metka… Mi smo to prijavili  Odeljenju za visokotehnološki kriminal i od njih dobili samo odgovor da to nije pretnja. 

Za većinu sagovornika digitalni prostor je jedan od najčešćih kanala pritiska. Onlajn  napadi se kreću od uvreda i organizovanih komentara, preko pretnji i targetiranja, do  pokušaja kompromitovanja profila. 

Marko Živković iz Revolta navodi da redakcija dobija poruke u kojima ih nazivaju  „izdajnicima” i „ustašama”, kao i da su kolege dobile pretnje smrću nakon što su objavljeni  identiteti napadača na studente. Prema njegovim rečima, te pretnje su prijavljene policiji, a  jedan napadač je uhapšen, pa pušten da se brani sa slobode.  

Novinari Zoomer-a takođe svedoče o pretnjama na društvenim mrežama, posebno  nakon izbora. Nemanja Marinović navodi da su pretnje stizale u komentarima, uključujući  poruke poput „znamo jednog admina, pronaći ćemo sve ostale admine”. On ističe da je reč o  legitimnom mediju, a ne anonimnoj stranici, zbog čega takve poruke imaju drugačiju težinu. 

Irena Pejić sa portala Mašina navodi da redakcija redovno dobija pretnje putem  društvenih mreža i poruka. Prema njenim rečima, deo tih poruka institucije ne prepoznaju  kao pretnje jer nisu formulisane kao direktna namera, već kao nagoveštaj, poput poruka tipa „doći će i vaš kraj”. Mašina je, kako navodi, mesecima prijavljivala takve pretnje, ali je prestala  jer nije bilo reakcije institucija. 

Kod dela sagovornika digitalni pritisci ne ostaju samo na uvredama i pretnjama, već  obuhvataju i pokušaje ugrožavanja naloga ili objavljivanje privatnih podataka. 

Iz Zoomera navode primer tzv. “doxxinga”, odnosno objavljivanja identiteta studenata  koji učestvuju u plenumima, kao i targetiranja Nemanje Marinovića tvrdnjama da je „britanski  plaćenik” i „rušitelj države”. Marinović to povezuje sa ranijim javnim angažmanom i  projektima, ali i sa obrascem diskreditacije koji se zasniva na povezivanju novinara i aktivista  sa stranim organizacijama. 

Marko Živković iz Revolta navodi da su imali „veliki broj napada na profile na  društvenim mrežama” i da je njegov lični profil napadnut, nakon čega više nije imao pristup. On taj napad povezuje sa izveštavanjem sa izbora u Mionici i otkrivanjem kupovine glasova,  što je privuklo pažnju. 

Jedan od obrazaca koji se ponavlja jeste nepoverenje u institucije i osećaj da prijave  ne dovode do zaštite.  

Irena Pejić iz Mašine kaže da su pojedine pretnje prijavljivali policiji, odnosno  Tužilaštvu za visokotehnološki kriminal, ali da se „ništa nije desilo”. Dodaje i da su neke  situacije, poput sumnji da su praćeni, odlučili da ne prijave jer se nisu osećali bezbedno da to urade. 

Milica Borjanić iz KOMS-a ukazuje na širi problem nepoverenja mladih u institucije.  Prema njenim rečima, mladi se primarno ne obraćaju institucijama, već veće poverenje imaju  u organizacije civilnog društva, udruženja novinara i platforme za podršku. Ona navodi da su  slučajevi za koje zna najčešće prijavljivani uz posredovanje takvih organizacija, a ne zato što  je mlada osoba sama znala sva svoja prava i odmah odlučila da pokrene prijavu. 

Žarko Bogosavljević iz Razglas Newsa takođe ukazuje na nekažnjivost kao faktor  ponavljanja napada. On navodi da se prijave često odbacuju posle dugog vremena ili da se  napadač ne pronađe, što, prema njegovoj oceni, stvara osećaj da je moguće nasrtati na  novinare bez posledica.

Lokalni izbori – izborni dan kao test bezbednosti

Lokalni izbori u Boru izdvajaju se kao poseban događaj tokom izrade ovog izveštaja,  jer su tokom izbornog dana istovremeno došli do izražaja bezbednosni rizici za novinare,  problemi u koordinaciji medijskih ekipa, otežan pristup pouzdanim informacijama i razlika  između položaja lokalnih medija i redakcija koje su u Bor došle iz drugih gradova. 

Lazar Ranđelović, urednik Tebra portala, opisuje da je izborni dan počeo u atmosferi  tenzije. Prema njegovim navodima, već ujutru su stizale informacije o incidentima, najpre u  Donjoj Beloj Reci, a zatim i ispred prostorija SNS-a u centru Bora. On navodi da je to  delovalo kao „uvod u dan”, iako ocenjuje da na kraju „nije bilo haotično kao što se prvobitno  činilo da će biti”. 

Ranđelović kaže da su mediji imali neku vrstu zajedničke novinarske baze u lokalu  blizu Doma kulture u centru Bora, gde su se ekipe okupljale, kao i kanal komunikacije preko  kojeg su razmenjivale informacije.  

Marko Živković iz redakcije portala Revolt navodi detalje napada na novinare Ivana  Bjelića i Lazara Dinića, fotoreporterku Zoricu Popović i lokalnog aktivistu Aleksandra Kulića.  Živković kaže da su se njih četvoro nalazili u blizini biračkog mesta broj 34 u selu  Šarbanovac tokom izbornog dana. Kaže da im je prišla grupa maskiranih ljudi nakon što je  Zorica Popović fotografisala osobe koje su sedele u kombiju pored biračkog mesta sa  spiskovima i papirima. Napadači nisu želeli da budu fotografisani i krenuli su ka njima kako  bi im oduzeli opremu i uništili dokaze. 

Živković navodi da je prvo napadnuta Zorica Popović, a da su se Ivan Bjelić i Lazar  Dinić „umešali” kako bi je odbranili. Zatim se, prema njegovom iskazu, pojavio crni Audi  banjalučkih registracija iz kojeg su izašla još trojica maskiranih muškaraca, nakon čega su  im napadači oduzeli i razbili telefone i opremu. 

Živković navodi da je Lazara jedan od napadača jurio preko njive, da su ga potom  tukli i da su, prema njegovim rečima, napadači tokom napada komunicirali video-pozivom  sa osobom koja im je davala instrukcije. Takođe navodi da su Lazara terali da viče „Aca  predsednik”, dok su Ivana nazivali „ustašom” i „plaćenikom”. 

Nemanja Marinović sa portala Zoomer kaže da je procenu bezbednosti novinara  promenio upravo nakon lokalnih izbora. Prema njegovim rečima, da je razgovor vođen pre  izbora, verovatno bi dao višu ocenu, ali posle događaja u Boru i Bajinoj Bašti ocenjuje da  bezbednost teško može biti iznad jedinice. 

Marinović navodi i da su se novinari u Boru, uključujući ekipe Zoomera, Glasa  Zaječara, Mašine, Revolta i druge, nalazili u kafiću koji je služio kao neka vrsta „štaba medija”. 

Prema njegovim rečima, dobili su informaciju da postoji dojava da će grupa ljudi  upasti u taj kafić, zbog čega su morali da pređu na drugu lokaciju. Sa njima su, kako navodi,  bili i predstavnici Nezavisnog udruženja novinara Srbije. 

Irena Pejić sa portala Mašina opisuje i napad na njihovu koleginicu u Negotinu,  tokom izveštavanja sa izbora. Prema njenim navodima, novinarka i kolega iz drugog medija  otišli su nekoliko metara od ostalih novinara da provere šta se dogodilo, nakon čega ih je  opkolila grupa muškaraca ispred prostorija Srpske napredne stranke. Novinarki je strgnuta  akreditacija, a kolegi je razbijen telefon i zadobio je udarac u nos. Slučaj je, prema njenim  rečima, prijavljen policiji, ali epiloga nije bilo. 

Strategije zaštite i potreba za obukama

Iskustva sagovornika pokazuju da studentski, omladinski i mladi nezavisni mediji  uglavnom nemaju formalizovane bezbednosne protokole. Zaštita se najčešće zasniva na  iskustvu, proceni rizika, internim dogovorima, radu u paru ili timu, kontaktima sa  novinarskim organizacijama i oslanjanju na iskusnije kolege. Takve prakse postoje, ali su u  većini slučajeva ad hoc i zavise od kapaciteta pojedinačne redakcije. 

Najčešća praksa koju sagovornici navode jeste da se na rizične događaje ne ide  samostalno. Ta praksa posebno se ponavlja u razgovorima o protestima, studentskim  okupljanjima i izbornom danu. 

Jovan Živković iz Pressing-a navodi da redakcija nema formalnu obuku, već se  oslanja na iskustvo i savete kolega: 

Nismo, niti znamo za neki vid formalne obuke za izveštavanje u kriznim  situacijama. Prepušteni smo instinktu i savetima kolega koji su ranije izveštavali sa  takvih događaja. 

Iz Youth Vibes-a navode da znanje prenose interno, ali da se na terenu pokazuje  granica takvog modela: 

Uvek kada mi prođemo kroz neki trening, gledamo da i našim dopisnicima  pružimo neko znanje… ali postoje stvari koje smo znale u teoriji, a u praksi ih nismo  baš primenile. 

Redakcija Studentskog dnevnog lista navodi da, kada je reč o izveštavanju sa  osetljivih događaja poput protesta, praktikuju da dvoje novinara bude zajedno na terenu,  kako bi mogli da snime eventualno ugrožavanje bezbednosti kolege, ali i da mu pomognu.  U istom odgovoru ističu da nisu imali formalnu obuku za krizne situacije i da su prepušteni „instinktu i savetima kolega koji su ranije izveštavali sa takvih događaja”. 

Iako redakcija Oblakodera nema formalizovan plan postupanja u slučaju napada ili  pretnje, Snežana Katunac navodi da znaju da bi se u slučaju potrebe obratile ANEM-u ili  NUNS-u, ali da specifičniji interni protokol ne postoji. Takođe navodi da je praksa tokom  izveštavanja sa protesta da na teren ne ide jedna osoba sama.  

Sličan obrazac postoji i kod Mingla. Miljana Jovanović navodi da su tokom  izveštavanja sa protesta znali koje organizacije i udruženja su tog dana otvorila svoje  prostore, da su imali akreditacije, kontakte i dogovor da budu na vezi. Međutim, ističe da  ne postoji pisani „step by step” protokol. 

Milica Marković i Lana Stanisavljević iz Youth Vibes-a kažu da se zaštita u njihovoj  redakciji zasniva na internoj komunikaciji i dostupnosti osobe koja može da kontaktira  iskusnije novinare, novinarska udruženja ili policiju.  

Redakcije koje intenzivno izveštavaju sa protesta, izbornih procesa i kriznih  događaja razvile su nešto složenije interne prakse, ali i one često ostaju zasnovane na  iskustvu, a ne na institucionalizovanom sistemu. 

Nemanja Marinović iz Zoomer-a navodi da, kada se ide na ozbiljne terene, nastoji  da novinari ne idu sami, da se komunicira tokom rada na terenu, da se koristi određena  oprema u zavisnosti od procene rizika i da su dostupni kontakti pravne pomoći.  

Redakcija Mašine ima još izraženije bezbednosne prakse, što je povezano sa čestim  izveštavanjem sa visokorizičnih događaja. Irena Pejić navodi da su novinari Mašine uvek  jasno obeleženi, sa akreditacijama, prslucima i šlemovima, i da imaju politiku da se jasno  identifikuju kao novinari. Uprkos tome, prema njenim rečima, i dalje su izloženi guranju,  udarcima, gađanju i pokušajima kontrole snimljenog materijala. 

Većina sagovornika prepoznaje novinarska udruženja i organizacije kao važne  adrese za podršku, ali saradnja često nije sistemski razvijena. Ona se uglavnom aktivira u  trenutku krize, kada treba prijaviti incident, dobiti savet ili pravnu podršku.

Reakcije institucija i poverenje u sistem zaštite

Iskustva sagovornika ukazuju da odnos prema institucijama predstavlja jednu od  ključnih tačaka nesigurnosti za studentske, omladinske i mlade nezavisne medije. Čak i  kada postoje formalni mehanizmi za prijavu pretnji, napada ili digitalnog uznemiravanja,  sagovornici često navode da ne očekuju efikasnu reakciju ili da se nakon prijave ništa ne  dešava. 

Milica Borjanić iz KOMS-a ukazuje na širi obrazac: mladi imaju više poverenja u  organizacije civilnog društva, udruženja novinara i platforme za podršku nego u institucije.  Prema njenom uvidu, slučajevi pretnji i napada najčešće se prijavljuju upravo uz  posredovanje takvih organizacija, a ne zato što mladi sami poznaju sva svoja prava i  procedure. 

Mašina navodi da su pojedine pretnje prijavljivali policiji, odnosno Tužilaštvu za  visokotehnološki kriminal, ali da, prema njihovim rečima, reakcije nije bilo. Irena Pejić kaže  da je redakcija u jednom periodu mesecima prijavljivala pretnje, ali da je izostanak reakcije  doveo do povlačenja iz tog procesa: 

Mi smo jedno vreme, mesecima, prijavljivali pretnje, a onda smo prestali da ih  prijavljujemo jer nema nikakve reakcije institucija. 

Iz Youth Vibes-a navode da je redakcija prijavila komentar koji je doživela kao  pretnju, ali da im je iz Odeljenja za visokotehnološki kriminal odgovoreno da ne postoji  naznaka pretnje. Taj slučaj pokazuje razliku između načina na koji redakcije doživljavaju  ugrožavanje i načina na koji institucije kvalifikuju takve poruke. 

Kod redakcije Revolta je reakcija policije u jednom slučaju opisana kao formalno  postojeća, ali i dalje nedovoljna za osećaj sigurnosti. Marko Živković navodi da su pretnje  smrću prijavljene policiji i da je jedna osoba uhapšena, ali potom puštena da se brani sa  slobode. Istovremeno, njegovo svedočenje pokazuje i složen odnos između mladih  medijskih radnika i policije: deo policajaca ih poznaje sa protesta i javnih događaja, ali to  ne znači da se institucije doživljavaju kao pouzdan sistem zaštite.

Pritisci, tužbe i otežan pristup informacijama

Politički pritisci kod studentskih i omladinskih medija ne pojavljuju se uvek kao  direktne zabrane, pozivi političara ili otvoreni pokušaji uređivačkog uticaja. Kod dela  sagovornika oni se prepoznaju kroz šire okruženje: etiketiranje, neodgovaranje institucija,  otežan pristup informacijama, dominaciju režimskih narativa i atmosferu u kojoj  izveštavanje o protestima, izborima ili društveno osetljivim temama odmah postaje politički  obeleženo. 

Nekoliko redakcija navodi da nisu imale direktne pritiske političara. Studentski dnevni  list ističe da nisu nailazili na otvorene pretnje ili preporuke, iako redovno izveštavaju o  protestima u Nišu i studentskim aktivnostima. Istovremeno, navode da nisu uvek dobijali  odgovore od institucija, ali to pre pripisuju neažurnosti nego činjenici da su teme bile politički  nepodobne. 

Sličnu razliku pravi i Mingl. Miljana Jovanović navodi da Mingl nema isti tip iskustva  kao istraživački mediji koji se bave korupcijom ili direktnim nadzorom vlasti.  

Oblakoder, iako nije dnevno-informativni medij, ima iskustva sa institucionalnim  neodgovaranjem. Snežana Katunac navodi da su sudovi odgovarali na njihove zahteve,  dok su ministarstva ili odbijala saradnju ili prestajala da odgovaraju nakon početne  komunikacije. 

Žarko Bogosavljević (Razglas) navodi da institucije u Novom Sadu ne odgovaraju ni  na pitanja o osnovnim komunalnim temama, što otežava redovan novinarski rad. 

Pravni pritisci se ne pojavljuju kod svih redakcija, ali slučaj Oblakodera pokazuje da  i omladinski i manji mediji mogu biti izloženi tužbama koje proizvode finansijski, psihološki  i organizacioni pritisak. 

Snežana Katunac navodi da je Oblakoder tužio Tomislav Momirović zbog prenošenja  informacije koju je prethodno objavio N1 kao nezvanično saznanje. Prema njenim rečima,  Oblakoder je u okviru nedeljnog pregleda vesti preneo formulaciju da je Momirović uhapšen  na aerodromu, uz navođenje izvora. Tužba je, kako navodi, podneta zbog povrede ugleda  i časti, uz tvrdnju tužioca da nije uhapšen na aerodromu, već kod kuće. 

Katunac posebno ističe da, prema saznanjima redakcije, nije tužen izvor koji je prvi  objavio informaciju, već više manjih medija koji su vest preneli. Taj navod treba zadržati sa  ogradom, jer ga i sagovornica označava kao informaciju koju treba uzeti sa rezervom.

Finansiranje, poslovanje i održivost

Finansijska održivost jedan je od ključnih izazova za sve nezavisne medije, a  studentski i omladinski mediji se nimalo ne razlikuju – ove redakcije često funkcionišu kroz  projektno finansiranje, donacije, partnerske saradnje, volonterski rad i povremene oblike  podrške. 

Milica Marković i Lana Stanisavljević iz Youth Vibes navoda da portal nema klasično  komercijalno oglašavanje, već saradnje sa lokalnim organizacijama koje preko njih  promovišu aktivnosti, kao i iskustvo pojedinačne korporativne donacije. Takav model  omogućava opstanak, ali ne obezbeđuje dugoročnu stabilnost. Redakcija ostaje zavisna od  projekata, pojedinačnih saradnji i povremenih prilika, što otežava planiranje rada i razvoj  tima. Sagovornice takođe naglašavaju očekivanja donatora da mali omladinski mediji  postanu „samoodrživi”. 

Prema njihovom iskustvu, dodatne aktivnosti mogu pomoći, ali ne mogu zameniti  stabilno finansiranje redakcijskog rada. Modeli poput prodaje proizvoda, povremenih  kampanja ili dopunskih aktivnosti mogu biti korisni kao dodatni prihod, ali ne rešavaju  suštinski problem: proizvodnja kvalitetnog medijskog sadržaja zahteva ljude, vreme,  opremu, urednički rad i administrativnu podršku. 

Kod Studentskog dnevnog lista i Univerzitetskog odjeka vidi se druga vrsta  održivosti: oslonac na fakultetski i studentski okvir. Takav model omogućava pristup mladim  ljudima, znanju i mentorskoj podršci, ali ne rešava u potpunosti pitanja formalnog statusa,  zaštite, kontinuiteta i profesionalnog razvoja. Studentske redakcije prirodno prolaze kroz  smenu generacija, a njihovi članovi često nemaju status zaposlenih novinara, što ih čini  organizaciono i bezbednosno ranjivijim. 

Oblakoder, Zoomer, Revolt i Mašina pokazuju druge oblike mladih i nezavisnih  redakcija koje se oslanjaju na kombinaciju projekata, javnog angažmana, mreža podrške i  prepoznatljivosti kod publike. Međutim, iz njihovih iskustava jasno je da veći javni uticaj  istovremeno donosi i veću izloženost pritiscima, što dodatno povećava potrebu za stabilnim  finansiranjem, pravnom zaštitom, digitalnom bezbednošću i kadrovskim kapacitetima. 

Jovan Živković iz Pressing-a ukazuje da finansijski problem nije samo pitanje razvoja  redakcije, već osnovnog dostojanstva rada: 

Ogroman broj novinara, među kojima su i oni koji su završili fakultet, radi za  mesečnu platu koja je manja od minimalca. Novinari su primorani da, ukoliko žive  sami i plaćaju kiriju i svoje račune, rade i dodatne poslove, čineći da njihova radna  nedelja traje i po 50+ sati.

Finansijska nestabilnost direktno utiče na bezbednost i kvalitet rada. Redakcije koje  nemaju stabilne prihode teže obezbeđuju zaštitnu opremu, pravnu pomoć, obuke, honorare  za iskusne saradnike i vreme za uređivačko planiranje. Kod studentskih i omladinskih  medija taj problem je dodatno izražen jer se često podrazumeva entuzijazam mladih, dok  se realni troškovi profesionalnog rada potcenjuju. 

Zbog toga se održivost ovih medija ne može posmatrati samo kroz pitanje prihoda.  Ona uključuje sposobnost da se zadrže ljudi, da se prenosi znanje, da se razviju protokoli,  da se obezbedi pravna i psihološka podrška i da redakcije ne zavise isključivo od  kratkoročnih projektnih ciklusa. 

Kadrovi, volonterizam i profesionalizacija

Studentski i omladinski mediji često imaju dvostruku ulogu: oni informišu javnost, ali  istovremeno predstavljaju prostor u kojem mladi ulaze u novinarstvo, uče profesionalne  standarde i stiču prvo terensko iskustvo.  

U studentskim redakcijama, poput Studentskog dnevnog lista i Univerzitetskog  odjeka, članovi redakcije stiču znanja kroz studije, mentorski rad i praktično iskustvo.  Katarina Aleksandrović navodi da studenti kroz obrazovanje dobijaju znanja o izveštavanju  i bezbednosti na terenu, uz podršku nastavnika koji su i sami radili kao novinari. Takav okvir je značajan, ali ne znači da redakcija ima formalizovane bezbednosne procedure ili  profesionalni status uporediv sa većim medijima. 

Univerzitetski odjek posebno ukazuje na problem dvostruke izloženosti. Članovi  redakcije su istovremeno studenti i medijski radnici, što im omogućava bolji kontakt sa  studentskom zajednicom, ali ih i čini ranjivijim. Oni se ne pojavljuju samo kao novinari koji  prate studentske teme, već i kao deo iste zajednice koja je u aktuelnom društvenom  kontekstu često targetirana. 

Kod omladinskih platformi, profesionalizacija se često odvija kroz mreže dopisnika,  projektne aktivnosti i povremene obuke. Mingl navodi da se oslanja na dopisnike koji već  imaju iskustva, posebno kada se izveštava iz rizičnijih sredina ili sa protesta. To je razumna  zaštitna praksa, ali istovremeno pokazuje da redakcije nemaju uvek kapacitete da same  sistemski obuče nove ljude. 

Youth Vibes ukazuje da se kapaciteti jačaju kada za to postoje projektna sredstva.  Sagovornice navode da, kada je moguće, deo sredstava usmeravaju na obuke, radionice i  angažovanje profesionalaca koji mogu da pomognu razvoju tima. To pokazuje da postoji  svest o potrebi profesionalizacije, ali da ona zavisi od finansijskih mogućnosti i projektnog  ciklusa.

Kod mladih nezavisnih redakcija poput Zoomera, Revolta i Mašine, kadrovsko pitanje  dodatno je povezano sa intenzitetom rada na terenu. Redakcije koje prate proteste, izbore  i krizne događaje moraju brzo da razvijaju znanja iz bezbednosti, digitalne zaštite, pravne  odgovornosti i rada pod pritiskom. Međutim, takvo znanje se često stiče kroz iskustvo i  incidente, a ne kroz unapred planiran sistem obuke. 

Volonterizam i entuzijazam mladih predstavljaju važan resurs, ali ne mogu biti  osnova dugoročne održivosti. Ako se od mladih novinara očekuje da rade u visokorizičnom  okruženju, prate proteste, izbore i osetljive teme, onda njihov rad mora biti praćen  adekvatnom obukom, podrškom, zaštitom i naknadom. U suprotnom, omladinski i  studentski mediji ostaju zavisni od pojedinačnog entuzijazma, što dugoročno vodi  iscrpljivanju i gubitku ljudi. 

Profesionalizacija ovih medija zato ne znači samo formalizaciju redakcija, već i  stvaranje uslova da mladi ljudi mogu bezbedno da uče, greše, razvijaju se i ostanu u  novinarstvu. To uključuje mentorsku podršku, dostupne obuke, pravnu sigurnost,  psihološku podršku posle incidenata i finansijske modele koji ne podrazumevaju da se  javno važan rad obavlja gotovo isključivo iz entuzijazma. 

Medijska scena, solidarnost i mreže podrške

U razgovorima sa sagovornicima solidarnost se pojavljuje kao jedan od najvažnijih  resursa studentskih, omladinskih i mladih nezavisnih medija. Ona se vidi kroz međusobno  deljenje informacija, zajednički rad na terenu, povezivanje sa iskusnijim redakcijama,  oslanjanje na novinarska udruženja i podršku organizacija civilnog društva. 

Tokom lokalnih izbora u Boru, solidarnost je imala vrlo praktičan oblik. Prema  navodima sagovornika, više medijskih ekipa koristilo je zajednički prostor, razmenjivalo  informacije i pokušavalo da koordinira kretanje na terenu. U tom prostoru bili su, između  ostalih, Zoomer, Tebrizam, Glas Zaječara, Mašina, Revolt i drugi mediji, uz predstavnike  NUNS-a.  

Mingl navodi saradnju sa različitim redakcijama i platformama, uključujući Blokade  info i Mašinu, posebno u kontekstu izveštavanja sa studentskih protesta i fakulteta. Takve  saradnje pokazuju da omladinski mediji često ne funkcionišu izolovano, već kao deo šire  mreže koja im omogućava pristup terenu, iskustvu i podršci. 

Oblakoder kao potencijalne adrese podrške navodi ANEM i NUNS, dok  Univerzitetski odjek ističe osećaj zajednice i solidarnosti među novinarima i novinarkama u  Novom Sadu. Ipak, sagovornici istovremeno ukazuju da ta solidarnost ne rešava problem  formalne zaštite. 

Ona pomaže u kriznim situacijama, ali ne može da zameni sistemske procedure,  pravnu sigurnost i institucionalnu reakciju. 

Milica Borjanić iz KOMS ukazuje na važnu razliku u poverenju: mladi često više  veruju organizacijama civilnog društva, novinarskim udruženjima i platformama za podršku  nego institucijama. To znači da mreže podrške u praksi preuzimaju deo uloge koju bi trebalo  da imaju formalni sistemi zaštite. 

Međutim, solidarnost ima svoja ograničenja. Primer izbornog dana u Boru pokazuje  da zajednička komunikacija i prisustvo drugih medija mogu pomoći, ali ne mogu uvek  sprečiti nasilje, konfuziju ili izostanak informacija. Kada se situacija brzo menja, kada  redakcije nemaju jasne procedure i kada institucije ne daju pouzdane podatke, neformalna  mreža podrške postaje važna, ali nedovoljna. 

Zbog toga je jedan od ključnih nalaza ovog izveštaja da postojeće mreže solidarnosti  treba ojačati i formalizovati tamo gde je to moguće. To ne znači birokratizaciju mladih  medija, već stvaranje jasnijih kanala: kome se redakcija javlja u kriznoj situaciji, ko pruža  pravnu podršku, ko prati slučajeve pretnji, ko može da pomogne u digitalnoj zaštiti i kako  se iskustva prenose novim članovima redakcija. 

Studentski i omladinski mediji pokazuju visok nivo međusobne podrške i spremnosti  na saradnju. Ipak, njihova bezbednost ne može zavisiti samo od solidarnosti. Ona mora biti  15 dopunjena sistemskim obukama, dostupnom pravnom zaštitom, stabilnijim finansiranjem i  institucionalnim mehanizmima koji će pretnje i napade tretirati ozbiljno, bez obzira na to da  li je reč o velikoj profesionalnoj redakciji, omladinskoj platformi ili studentskom mediju.

ZAKLJUČAK 

Studentski i omladinski mediji u Srbiji danas rade u prostoru koji je neuređen i rizičan.  Oni nisu samo „škola novinarstva” niti sporedni deo medijske scene. U trenutku kada se  veliki deo javnog života preselio na ulice, društvene mreže, fakultete, lokalne izbore i  neformalne kanale komunikacije, upravo su mladi novinari, studentske redakcije i  omladinski portali često bili među prvima koji su beležili događaje, prenosili informacije i  pokušavali da objasne ono što se dešava njihovoj generaciji. 

Ali ovaj izveštaj pokazuje da ulazak mladih u novinarstvo sve ređe počinje u  sigurnom profesionalnom okruženju. Za mnoge od njih prvi teren nije konferencija za  medije, već protest. Prvi profesionalni izazov nije samo kako napisati vest, već kako  sačuvati telefon, kako ostati u vezi sa urednikom, kako prepoznati rizik, kome se javiti ako  ih neko napadne i da li će ih institucije uopšte tretirati kao novinare. 

Sagovornici u ovom izveštaju opisuju različita iskustva, ali se iz njih jasno vidi isti  obrazac: formalna zaštita često izostaje, procedure su nedovoljno razvijene, a bezbednost  zavisi od lične procene, solidarnosti kolega i brzine kojom se redakcija snađe u krizi. U tom  smislu, studentski i omladinski mediji funkcionišu u paradoksu. Od njih se očekuje da budu  profesionalni, brzi, odgovorni i javno korisni, ali im se istovremeno retko obezbeđuju uslovi  koje profesionalan rad podrazumeva – stabilno finansiranje, pravna podrška, bezbednosne  obuke, digitalna zaštita, psihološka podrška i institucionalno priznanje. 

Posebno je važno što se rizik za mlade novinare ne završava na terenu. On se  nastavlja u komentarima, porukama, targetiranju, pokušajima kompromitovanja naloga, ali  i u tišini institucija. Kada prijava ostane bez epiloga, kada se pretnja ne prepozna kao  pretnja, kada se napad relativizuje ili kada se odgovornost prebaci na onoga ko je snimao,  šalje se jasna poruka: mladi novinari mogu da budu vidljivi, ali ne i nužno zaštićeni. 

Upravo zato se pitanje studentskih i omladinskih medija ne može svesti na pitanje  njihove održivosti kao projekata. Ono je pitanje budućnosti novinarstva. Ako mladi ljudi u  profesiju ulaze kroz neplaćen rad, improvizovane bezbednosne protokole i iskustvo  nekažnjenih napada, onda problem nije samo u tome što će neke redakcije teško opstati.  Problem je u tome što se čitava jedna generacija novinara uči da je nesigurnost sastavni  deo posla.

Ovi mediji pokazuju da među mladima postoji znanje, hrabrost, solidarnost i osećaj  javne odgovornosti. Pokazuju i da publika postoji, naročito onda kada tradicionalni mediji  ne uspevaju da govore jezikom novih generacija ili da prepoznaju teme koje su njima važne.  Međutim, entuzijazam ne može biti zamena za sistem. Solidarnost ne može biti jedini  bezbednosni mehanizam. A volontiranje ne može dugoročno nositi posao koji je u javnom  interesu. 

Zato je ključni nalaz ovog izveštaja da studentske i omladinske medije treba  posmatrati kao relevantan deo medijskog ekosistema, a ne kao njegovu marginu. Njihova  zaštita, obuka i finansijska održivost nisu pomoć „mladima da probaju novinarstvo”, već  ulaganje u javnost koja će i u narednim godinama zavisiti od toga da neko bude spreman  da ode na teren, postavi pitanje, proveri informaciju i objavi ono što drugi pokušavaju da  sakriju. 

U zemlji u kojoj se mladi novinari sve češće uče da rade pod pritiskom pre nego što  dobiju priliku da rade u stabilnoj redakciji, pitanje više nije samo koliko su oni spremni za  novinarstvo. Pitanje je koliko je sistem spreman da ih zaštiti. 

 

Ova publikacija objavljena je uz finansijsku pomoć Evropske unije, Norveške i Balkanskog  fonda za demokratiju, projekta Nemačkog Maršalovog fonda SAD. Za njenu sadržinu  isključivo je odgovorna Asocijacija nezavisnih elektronskih medija i ta sadržina nužno ne  izražava zvanične stavove Evropske unije, vlade Norveške, Nemačkog Maršalovog fonda i  Balkanskog fonda za demokratiju.

 

Introduction

Student and youth media in Serbia occupy a distinctive place within the country’s media  landscape. They simultaneously seek to inform, engage young audiences, cover topics that  traditional media frequently overlook, and operate within organizational frameworks that are  more often project-based, informal, and constrained by limited resources than stable and  institutionalized. 

This report is based on interviews conducted with journalists: Irena Pejić (Mašina), Lazar  Ranđelović (Tebra), Marko Živković (Revolt), Milica Marković and Lana Stanisavljević (Youth  2 

Vibes), Miljana Jovanović (Mingl), Nemanja Marinović (Zoomer), Jovan Živković (Pressing),  Snežana Katunac (Oblakoder), Katarina Aleksandrović (Studentski dnevni list), Andrijana  Martačić, Milica Stevanović, Tijana Doroški and Marko Antić (Univerzitetski odjek), Žarko  Bogosavljević (Razglas News), as well as Milica Borjanić, Secretary General of the National  Youth Council of Serbia (KOMS). 

The report does not cover only formally designated student and youth media outlets, but also  newsrooms whose content, audience, team composition, or field reporting make them  relevant to understanding the position of young journalists, youth editorial teams, and media  outlets covering student and youth-related issues.

Overall Assessment of Safety

The interviewees from student, youth, and young independent media outlets assess  journalists’ safety differently; however, several recurring patterns emerge from their  responses: a perception of insufficient institutional protection, the dependence of safety on  the topic being covered and the reporting environment, and increasing risks associated with  reporting from protests, student gatherings, and electoral processes. 

Safety ratings provided during the interviews range from one to three, with the exception of  several newsrooms that stated they had not yet been directly attacked themselves, while  nevertheless describing the overall media environment as extremely poor. 

Representatives of Univerzitetski odjek gave the lowest possible assessment of the safety of  student media in Novi Sad. Andrijana Martačić stated that, with regard to student media, she  would assign a rating of one because they “are not formally as well protected as some larger  media outlets.” Milica Stevanović agreed with this assessment, adding that student media  have no adequate protection “other than ourselves.” Marko Antić of Univerzitetski odjek  described the position of student journalists as one of double vulnerability: 

As a student media outlet, we literally have double targets on our heads because we are simultaneously students, a media outlet, and journalists. 

Miljana Jovanović of the Mingl portal offered a similar assessment, although she noted that  their correspondents had not experienced direct problems while reporting. However, when  discussing the broader media environment, she assigned the lowest safety rating, referring  to the treatment of colleagues from other newsrooms. 

Milica Borjanić of KOMS likewise rated the safety of journalists at one. She pointed out that,  for young people, the risk is not limited to the individual reporting the story but often extends  to their families and local communities: 

Young people are particularly vulnerable in smaller communities because if someone  sees them reporting, their parents may lose their jobs, or their phone may be  smashed… 

In her view, young people experience a strong sense of insecurity and lack of freedom  because the consequences of their public engagement may spill over to their families, their  parents’ employment, or their everyday lives within their local communities. 

Other interviewees gave slightly higher ratings, although they likewise described an unsafe  working environment. Snežana Katunac of Oblakoder rated safety at two—or, as she put it,  “a weak two”—explaining that pressure has continued to intensify and repression has  become increasingly overt, although there is still room for important stories to reach the public. 

Milica Marković and Lana Stanisavljević of the Youth Vibes portal assessed the safety  situation in Niš with a middle rating (3), while noting that conditions had been considerably  worse during periods of intensified protests, particularly for women journalists working in the  field. 

Reflecting on experiences during local elections, Zoomer editor Nemanja Marinović stated  that the safety rating “can hardly be higher than one.” 

The interviews indicate that the safety of student and youth media cannot be measured solely  by the number of incidents experienced by an individual newsroom. Several interviewees  stressed that the absence of a direct attack does not necessarily mean that journalists feel  protected; rather, it may simply indicate that the newsroom has not yet found itself at the most  dangerous moment, in the highest-risk location, or covering the most contentious topic. 

Threats, Targeting and Attacks

The interviewees’ experiences demonstrate that pressure on student, youth, and young  independent media does not take a single form. For some newsrooms, it primarily consists  of online abuse, hostile comments, and targeted harassment, while others report physical  attacks, attempts to confiscate equipment, surveillance, cyberattacks, and threats that remain  without any meaningful institutional response. 

The threats and attacks described by the interviewees can broadly be divided into three  categories: online targeting and threats, physical endangerment in the field, and digital forms  of pressure. 

The most serious threats to journalists’ safety are associated with reporting from protests,  election days, and other high-risk events. Interviewees described situations in which  journalists were physically assaulted, pushed, surrounded, prevented from filming, or  subjected to attempts to seize their equipment. 

Milica Stevanović of Univerzitetski odjek stated that she was physically attacked in front of  the Serbian National Theatre during a protest at which other journalists were also assaulted.  According to her, she was clearly identifiable as a member of the press, wearing both a press  vest and accreditation, but the situation escalated when journalists began documenting an  attack on a group of students. She explained that the journalists found themselves trapped  in an area from which they could not withdraw while the police failed to intervene. 

During the same interview, Marko Antić described the specific risks faced by student media.  He explained that, although he was clearly identified as a press photographer, he was  targeted on social media pages that targeted students participating in the protests. He  attributes this to the unique position of student journalists, who are simultaneously students and media professionals. 

The Zoomer newsroom also reported several incidents in which its journalists were  endangered while reporting in the field over the past year. Nemanja Marinović referred to  attacks on journalists during protests, the chasing of a female journalist, a police officer  striking a journalist’s hand while she was recording police brutality, firecrackers being thrown  at a female journalist, exposure to tear gas and an emergency evacuation in Novi Sad, as  well as the arrest of Darko Gligorijević while he was reporting from Studentski Grad. 

Journalists from Mašina likewise described frequent physical pressure while reporting in the  field. Irena Pejić stated that, despite being clearly identified as members of the press—with  accreditation cards, press vests, and helmets—Mašina journalists are frequently pushed,  struck, or pelted with objects while reporting. 

Pejić also described an incident in front of the National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia,  when police officers demanded access to her mobile phone and recorded footage: 

First they told me, ‘Give us your phone.’ Then, when I said I wouldn’t hand it over and  that they had no right to demand it, they replied, ‘No, no, we only want to see the  recordings and delete them. 

She further explained that some threats occupy the grey area between obvious intimidation  and the narrow legal definition of a threat:

They’ll say, ‘Your time will come.’ They don’t say, ‘I’ll eliminate you,’ but rather, ‘Your  time will come.’ I mean, that’s a threat, but legally it isn’t defined as one. 

Žarko Bogosavljević of Razglas News described Novi Sad as an environment in which attacks  and assaults against journalists have become increasingly frequent. He cited as one of the  most serious incidents an attack in Stražilovska Street, when a group of masked young men  armed with clubs attacked a column of people, and he was struck on the head with a metal  bar. According to him, the only reason he escaped more serious injury was that he was  wearing a helmet. 

During the interview with members of the Youth Vibes newsroom, one example concerned  comments posted beneath content related to LGBT topics, in which someone left the  numerical designation of a bullet calibre: 

Someone left a number in the comments—the calibre of a bullet… We reported it to  the Special Prosecutor’s Office for High-Tech Crime, and all we received in response  was that it did not constitute a threat. 

For most interviewees, the digital sphere is one of the most common channels through which  pressure is exerted. Online attacks range from insults and coordinated commenting  campaigns to threats, targeted harassment, and attempts to compromise social media  accounts.

Marko Živković of Revolt stated that the newsroom regularly receives messages calling its  members “traitors” and “Ustašas,” and that colleagues received death threats after the  identities of individuals who had attacked students were published. According to him, those  threats were reported to the police, one suspect was arrested, and was subsequently  released pending trial. 

Zoomer journalists likewise reported receiving threats via social media, particularly after  elections. Nemanja Marinović stated that threatening comments included messages such as:  “We know one of the admins, and we’ll find all the other admins.” He emphasized that Zoomer  is a legitimate media outlet rather than an anonymous social media page, which gives such  messages considerably greater weight. 

Irena Pejić of Mašina stated that the newsroom regularly receives threats through social  media platforms and private messages. According to her, institutions often fail to recognize  such messages as threats because they are not phrased as explicit declarations of intent but  rather as insinuations—for example, messages stating that “your time will come.” She  explained that Mašina reported such threats for months but eventually stopped doing so  because the institutions failed to respond. 

For some interviewees, digital pressure extends beyond insults and threats to include  attempts to compromise accounts or publish personal information. 

Zoomer cited examples of so-called “doxxing,” namely the publication of the identities of students participating in plenums, as well as the targeting of Nemanja Marinović through  claims that he was “a British mercenary” and “an enemy of the state.” Marinović linked this  to his previous public engagement and projects, as well as to a broader pattern of discrediting  journalists and activists by portraying them as being connected to foreign organizations. 

Marko Živković of Revolt stated that the newsroom had experienced “a large number of  attacks on our social media accounts,” adding that his personal account had been  compromised, causing him to lose access to it. He associated the attack with the newsroom’s  reporting on elections in Mionica and its exposure of vote buying, which had attracted  considerable public attention. 

One recurring pattern throughout the interviews is a profound lack of trust in institutions and  a widespread perception that reporting threats does not result in protection. 

Irena Pejić of Mašina explained that some threats had been reported to the police and to the  Special Prosecutor’s Office for High-Tech Crime, but that “nothing happened.” She added  that, in certain situations—such as when journalists suspected they were being followed— the newsroom deliberately chose not to report the incidents because they did not feel safe  doing so. 

Milica Borjanić of KOMS pointed to the broader problem of young people’s lack of trust in  institutions. According to her, young people primarily seek assistance from civil society organizations, journalists’ associations, and support platforms rather than from state  institutions. She explained that, in the cases she was familiar with, reports were generally  submitted with the assistance of such organizations, rather than because the young person  independently knew all of their rights and immediately decided to initiate formal proceedings. 

Žarko Bogosavljević of Razglas News also identified impunity as a factor contributing to the  recurrence of attacks. According to him, criminal complaints are often dismissed after lengthy  periods of time, or the perpetrators are never identified, creating the impression that  journalists can be attacked without consequences. 

Local Elections – Election Day as a Test of Journalists’ Safety

The local elections in Bor stand out as a particularly significant event during the preparation  of this report, as election day simultaneously exposed security risks for journalists,  shortcomings in the coordination of media crews, difficulties in obtaining reliable information,  and the disparity between the position of local media outlets and that of newsrooms that had  travelled to Bor from other cities. 

Lazar Ranđelović, editor of the Tebra portal, describes election day as having begun in an  atmosphere of heightened tension. According to him, reports of incidents started coming in  early in the morning, first from Donja Bela Reka and later from in front of the premises of the Serbian Progressive Party (SNS) in central Bor. He says that this appeared to be “an  introduction to the day,” although he concludes that, in the end, “it was not as chaotic as it  had initially seemed it would be.” 

Ranđelović explains that journalists had established a kind of joint media base in a café near  the Cultural Centre in the centre of Bor, where reporting teams gathered. They also  maintained a communication channel through which they exchanged information throughout  the day. 

Marko Živković of the Revolt newsroom recounts the attack on journalists Ivan Bjelić and  Lazar Dinić, photojournalist Zorica Popović, and local activist Aleksandar Kulić. According to  Živković, the four of them were near Polling Station No. 34 in the village of Šarbanovac on  election day. He says that a group of masked individuals approached them after Zorica  Popović photographed people sitting in a van parked next to the polling station with voter lists  and papers. The attackers did not want to be photographed and moved toward them in an  attempt to seize their equipment and destroy the evidence. 

Živković states that Zorica Popović was the first to be attacked, after which Ivan Bjelić and  Lazar Dinić “stepped in” to defend her. According to his account, a black Audi with registration  plates from Banja Luka then arrived, from which three additional masked men emerged. The  attackers proceeded to seize and smash their mobile phones and other equipment.

Živković further recounts that one of the attackers chased Lazar across a field before he was  beaten. He also states that, during the assault, the attackers were communicating via video  call with a person who was giving them instructions. According to Živković, they forced Lazar  to shout, “Aca for President,” while Ivan was called “an Ustaša” and “a mercenary.” 

Nemanja Marinović of the Zoomer portal says that it was the local elections that  fundamentally changed his assessment of journalists’ safety. According to him, had the  interview been conducted before the elections, he would probably have given a higher rating.  However, following the events in Bor and Bajina Bašta, he believes that the level of safety  can hardly be rated higher than one. 

Marinović also notes that journalists in Bor—including crews from Zoomer, Glas Zaječara,  Mašina, Revolt, and other media outlets—had been gathered in a café that served as a kind  of “media headquarters.” According to him, they received information that a group of people  was planning to storm the café, forcing them to relocate to another venue. Representatives  of the Independent Journalists’ Association of Serbia were also with them at the time. 

Irena Pejić of Mašina also describes an attack on one of their colleagues in Negotin while  reporting on the elections. According to her account, the journalist and a colleague from  another media outlet walked several metres away from the rest of the press corps to check  what had happened, when they were surrounded by a group of men outside the premises of  the Serbian Progressive Party. The female journalist’s press accreditation was torn from her, while her colleague’s mobile phone was smashed and he was struck in the nose. According  to Pejić, the incident was reported to the police, but no action was subsequently taken. 

Protection Strategies and the Need for Training

The experiences shared by the interviewees indicate that student, youth, and young  independent media outlets generally do not have formalized safety protocols. Protection is  most often based on experience, risk assessment, internal agreements, working in pairs or  teams, maintaining contacts with journalists’ organizations, and relying on more experienced  colleagues. While such practices do exist, they are, in most cases, ad hoc and depend on  the capacity of the individual newsroom. 

The most common practice cited by the interviewees is that journalists do not attend high risk events alone. This approach was repeatedly mentioned in discussions about protests,  student gatherings, and election day reporting. 

Jovan Živković of Pressing states that the newsroom has not received formal training but  instead relies on experience and advice from colleagues: 

We have not received, nor are we aware of, any formal training for reporting in crisis  situations. We rely on our instincts and on advice from colleagues who have previously covered such events. 

Representatives of Youth Vibes explain that they pass on knowledge internally but  acknowledge the limitations of this approach in practice: 

Whenever one of us attends a training, we make sure to pass that knowledge on to  our correspondents… But there are things we understood in theory that we simply  didn’t manage to apply in practice. 

The Studentski dnevni list newsroom states that, when reporting on sensitive events such as  protests, it is standard practice for two journalists to work together in the field so that one can  document any threat to the other’s safety and provide assistance if necessary. In the same  response, they note that they have not received formal crisis reporting training and instead  rely on “our instincts and advice from colleagues who have previously covered such events.” 

Although the Oblakoder newsroom does not have a formal response plan for attacks or  threats, Snežana Katunac explains that, if necessary, they know they would seek assistance  from ANEM or the Independent Journalists’ Association of Serbia. However, no more detailed  internal protocol is in place. She also notes that, when covering protests, it is standard  practice for journalists not to go into the field alone. 

A similar approach exists at Mingl. Miljana Jovanović explains that, while reporting on  protests, the newsroom knew which organizations and associations had opened their premises that day, had press credentials, maintained relevant contacts, and had agreed to  stay in constant communication. However, she emphasizes that there is no written, „step-by step“ protocol. 

Milica Marković and Lana Stanisavljević of Youth Vibes explain that safety within their  newsroom is based on internal communication and ensuring that there is always someone  available who can contact more experienced journalists, journalists’ associations, or the  police if necessary. 

Newsrooms that regularly report on protests, elections, and other high-risk events have  developed somewhat more comprehensive internal practices. Even so, these practices are  generally based on accumulated experience rather than on an institutionalized safety system. 

Nemanja Marinović of Zoomer explains that, when covering high-risk assignments, he  ensures that journalists do not work alone, that they remain in constant communication while  in the field, that appropriate protective equipment is used depending on the assessed level  of risk, and that legal assistance contacts are readily available. 

The Mašina newsroom has developed even more robust safety practices, reflecting its  frequent reporting from high-risk events. Irena Pejić explains that Mašina journalists are  always clearly identifiable, wearing press credentials, press vests, and helmets, and that the  newsroom has a policy of ensuring that its staff are unmistakably recognized as journalists. 

Nevertheless, according to her, they continue to face pushing, physical assaults, objects  being thrown at them, and attempts to gain access to or control over their recorded material. 

Most interviewees identify journalists’ associations and professional organizations as  important sources of support. However, cooperation with these organizations is rarely  systematic. Instead, it is generally activated only in times of crisis, when journalists need to  report an incident, seek advice, or obtain legal assistance. 

Institutional Responses and Trust in the Protection System

The experiences shared by the interviewees indicate that relations with public institutions  represent one of the key sources of insecurity for student, youth, and young independent  media outlets. Even where formal mechanisms exist for reporting threats, attacks, or online  harassment, interviewees frequently state that they do not expect an effective response or  that, once a report has been filed, no further action is taken. 

Milica Borjanić of KOMS points to a broader pattern: young people place greater trust in civil  society organizations, journalists’ associations, and support platforms than in state  institutions. Based on her experience, cases involving threats and attacks are most often  reported with the assistance of such organizations, rather than because young people  themselves are fully familiar with their rights and the relevant reporting procedures. 

Mašina states that it reported certain threats to the police and to the Special Prosecutor’s  Office for High-Tech Crime but that, according to the newsroom, no action was taken. Irena  Pejić explains that, for a period of several months, the newsroom consistently reported  threats, but the lack of any institutional response ultimately led them to stop doing so: 

For a while, we reported threats for months, but then we stopped because there was  absolutely no response from the institutions. 

Representatives of Youth Vibes state that the newsroom reported a comment they perceived  as a threat, only to be informed by the Special Prosecutor’s Office for High-Tech Crime that  the comment did not constitute a threat. This case illustrates the discrepancy between how  newsrooms perceive risks to their safety and how institutions legally classify such messages. 

In the case of Revolt, the police response in one instance was described as formally adequate  but still insufficient to create a genuine sense of security. Marko Živković states that death  threats were reported to the police, one individual was arrested, and was subsequently  released pending trial. At the same time, his testimony highlights the complex relationship  between young media professionals and the police: although some police officers know them  from protests and public events, this does not mean that the institutions are perceived as a  reliable system of protection.

Pressure, Lawsuits, and Restricted Access to Information

Political pressure on student and youth media does not always take the form of direct  censorship, calls from politicians, or overt attempts to influence editorial policy. For some  interviewees, such pressure is reflected in the broader environment: stigmatization, a lack of  responses from public institutions, restricted access to information, the dominance of pro government narratives, and an atmosphere in which reporting on protests, elections, or  socially sensitive issues is immediately perceived as politically charged. 

Several newsrooms state that they have not experienced direct pressure from politicians. Studentski dnevni list notes that it has not encountered explicit threats or attempts to influence  its reporting, despite regularly covering protests in Niš and student-related activities. At the  same time, the newsroom states that it has not always received responses from public  institutions, although it attributes this more to administrative inefficiency than to the political  sensitivity of the issues covered. 

Mingl draws a similar distinction. Miljana Jovanović explains that Mingl has not had the same  type of experience as investigative media outlets dealing with corruption or directly  scrutinizing those in power. 

Although Oblakoder is not a daily news outlet, it has experienced institutional non responsiveness. Snežana Katunac explains that the courts responded to the newsroom’s  requests, whereas ministries either refused to cooperate or stopped responding after the  initial communication. 

Žarko Bogosavljević (Razglas News) states that institutions in Novi Sad fail to respond even  to inquiries concerning basic municipal issues, making routine journalistic work significantly  more difficult. 

Legal pressure is not experienced by all newsrooms; however, the case of Oblakoder  demonstrates that youth-oriented and smaller media outlets may also face lawsuits that  create financial, psychological, and organizational burdens. 

Snežana Katunac explains that Oblakoder was sued by Tomislav Momirović for republishing  information that had previously been reported by N1 as unofficial information. According to  her, Oblakoder, in its weekly news roundup, reported that Momirović had been arrested at  the airport, clearly citing N1 as the source. She explains that the lawsuit was filed on the  grounds of alleged damage to the plaintiff’s reputation and honour, with the claimant arguing  that he had not been arrested at the airport but at his home. 

Katunac further emphasizes that, according to information available to the newsroom, the  lawsuit was not filed against the media outlet that originally published the information but  rather against several smaller media outlets that subsequently republished the story. This claim should be treated with appropriate caution, as the interviewee herself presents it as  information that has not been independently verified. 

Funding, Operations, and Sustainability

Financial sustainability is one of the key challenges facing all independent media, and student  and youth media are no exception. These newsrooms frequently operate through project based funding, grants, partnerships, volunteer work, and occasional forms of external  support. 

Milica Marković and Lana Stanisavljević of Youth Vibes explain that the portal does not rely  on traditional commercial advertising. Instead, it cooperates with local organizations that use  the platform to promote their activities and has also benefited from an individual corporate  donation. While this model enables the newsroom to continue operating, it does not provide  long-term stability. The newsroom remains dependent on project funding, individual  partnerships, and occasional opportunities, making it difficult to plan its work and develop its  team. The interviewees also point to donors’ expectations that small youth media outlets  should become “self-sustainable.” 

In their experience, supplementary activities can provide additional support but cannot  replace stable funding for editorial work. Models such as selling merchandise, running  12 

occasional fundraising campaigns, or engaging in complementary activities may generate  additional income, but they do not address the underlying problem: producing high-quality  media content requires skilled staff, time, equipment, editorial oversight, and administrative  support. 

Studentski dnevni list and Univerzitetski odjek represent a different model of sustainability,  relying on the support of universities and the broader academic environment. This model  facilitates access to young people, expertise, and mentorship, but it does not fully address  issues relating to formal status, protection, continuity, or professional development. Student  newsrooms naturally undergo continuous generational turnover, while their members often  do not hold the status of formally employed journalists, making them more vulnerable both  organizationally and in terms of their safety. 

Oblakoder, Zoomer, Revolt, and Mašina represent another model of young and independent  media organizations, relying on a combination of project funding, public engagement, support  networks, and recognition among their audiences. However, their experience clearly  demonstrates that greater public visibility also brings greater exposure to pressure, further  increasing the need for stable funding, legal protection, digital security, and adequate staffing  capacity. 

Jovan Živković of Pressing points out that the financial challenge is not merely an obstacle  to newsroom development but a matter of basic professional dignity:

A huge number of journalists, including many who hold university degrees, earn  monthly salaries that are below the minimum wage. Journalists who live independently  and have to pay rent and their bills are forced to take on additional jobs, which means  their working week often exceeds 50 hours. 

Financial instability has a direct impact on both journalists’ safety and the quality of their work.  Newsrooms without stable sources of income struggle to provide protective equipment, legal  assistance, professional training, adequate remuneration for experienced contributors, and  sufficient time for editorial planning. For student and youth media, this challenge is even more  pronounced, as the enthusiasm of young people is often taken for granted while the real costs  of professional journalism are consistently underestimated. 

For this reason, the sustainability of these media outlets cannot be viewed solely in terms of  financial revenue. It also encompasses their ability to retain staff, transfer knowledge to new  generations, develop internal protocols, provide legal and psychological support, and ensure  that their operations do not depend exclusively on short-term project funding cycles. 

Staffing, Volunteerism, and Professionalization

Student and youth media often serve a dual role: they inform the public while also providing  a space where young people enter the journalism profession, learn professional standards,  and gain their first experience in the field. 

In student newsrooms such as Studentski dnevni list and Univerzitetski odjek, editorial staff  acquire knowledge through their academic studies, mentorship, and practical experience.  Katarina Aleksandrović explains that students receive training in reporting and field safety as  part of their education, supported by lecturers who themselves have professional journalism  experience. While this framework is valuable, it does not mean that the newsroom has  formalized safety procedures or a professional status comparable to that of larger media  organizations. 

Univerzitetski odjek particularly highlights the problem of dual exposure. Members of the  editorial team are both students and media professionals, enabling them to maintain closer  ties with the student community while simultaneously making them more vulnerable. They  are not merely journalists covering student-related issues but also members of the very  community that, in the current social and political context, is itself frequently subjected to targeting. 

Within youth media platforms, professionalization often takes place through networks of  correspondents, project-based activities, and occasional training programmes. Mingl  explains that it relies on correspondents who already have prior experience, particularly when  reporting from higher-risk environments or protests. While this represents a sensible safety  practice, it also illustrates that newsrooms do not always have the capacity to provide systematic training for new staff themselves. 

Youth Vibes points out that organizational capacity can be strengthened when project funding  is available. The interviewees explain that, whenever possible, part of the funding is allocated  to training sessions, workshops, and the engagement of experienced professionals who can  contribute to the development of the editorial team. This demonstrates an awareness of the  importance of professionalization while also showing that such efforts depend largely on  available financial resources and project cycles. 

For young independent newsrooms such as Zoomer, Revolt, and Mašina, staffing issues are  further complicated by the intensity of field reporting. Newsrooms covering protests,  elections, and other crisis events must rapidly develop expertise in personal safety, digital  security, legal responsibilities, and working under pressure. However, such knowledge is  often acquired through direct experience and exposure to incidents rather than through a  structured training system established in advance. 

Volunteerism and the enthusiasm of young people are valuable resources, but they cannot  serve as the foundation for long-term sustainability. If young journalists are expected to work  in high-risk environments, covering protests, elections, and sensitive issues, their work must  be accompanied by appropriate training, professional support, protection, and fair  remuneration. Otherwise, student and youth media remain dependent on individual  enthusiasm alone, which inevitably leads to burnout and the loss of talented young journalists over time. 

Professionalization of these media outlets therefore means more than simply formalizing  newsroom structures. It also requires creating conditions in which young people can learn,  make mistakes, develop professionally, and remain in journalism in a safe and supportive  environment. This includes mentorship, access to professional training, legal protection,  psychological support following incidents, and sustainable funding models that do not  assume that work of significant public interest can be carried out almost entirely on the basis  of enthusiasm alone. 

Media Landscape, Solidarity, and Support Networks

In the interviews conducted for this report, solidarity emerges as one of the most important  resources available to student, youth, and young independent media outlets. It is reflected in  the sharing of information, joint field reporting, cooperation with more experienced  newsrooms, reliance on journalists’ associations, and support from civil society organizations. 

During the local elections in Bor, solidarity took on a very practical form. According to the  interviewees, several media crews shared a common workspace, exchanged information,  and attempted to coordinate their movements in the field. Among those using this shared  space were Zoomer, Tebrizam, Glas Zaječara, Mašina, Revolt, and other media outlets, together with representatives of the Independent Journalists’ Association of Serbia. 

Mingl describes its cooperation with various newsrooms and platforms, including Blokade  Info and Mašina, particularly in the context of reporting on student protests and developments  at universities. Such partnerships demonstrate that youth media rarely operate in isolation  but instead function as part of a broader network that provides access to the field,  professional experience, and mutual support. 

Oblakoder identifies ANEM and the Independent Journalists’ Association of Serbia as key  sources of support, while Univerzitetski odjek emphasizes the strong sense of community  and solidarity among journalists in Novi Sad. At the same time, however, the interviewees  stress that solidarity alone cannot compensate for the absence of formal protection. It is  invaluable in times of crisis, but it cannot replace systematic procedures, legal certainty, or  effective institutional responses. 

Milica Borjanić of KOMS points to an important distinction regarding trust: young people often  place greater confidence in civil society organizations, journalists’ associations, and support  platforms than in state institutions. As a result, support networks have, in practice, assumed  part of the role that should be fulfilled by formal protection mechanisms. 

Nevertheless, solidarity has its limits. The example of election day in Bor demonstrates that  effective communication and the presence of fellow journalists can help, but they cannot  always prevent violence, confusion, or the lack of reliable information. When circumstances change rapidly, newsrooms lack clear procedures, and institutions fail to provide timely and  accurate information, informal support networks become indispensable—but remain  insufficient on their own. 

For this reason, one of the report’s key findings is that existing networks of solidarity should  be strengthened and, wherever possible, formalized. This does not imply bureaucratizing  youth media, but rather establishing clearer channels for crisis response: identifying whom a  newsroom should contact in an emergency, who can provide legal assistance, who monitors  cases involving threats and attacks, who can offer digital security support, and how  experience and knowledge can be systematically transferred to new members of editorial  teams. 

Student and youth media demonstrate a high degree of mutual support and a strong  willingness to cooperate. However, their safety cannot depend on solidarity alone. It must be  reinforced by systematic training, accessible legal protection, more stable funding, and  institutional mechanisms that treat threats and attacks with the seriousness they deserve,  regardless of whether the target is a large professional newsroom, a youth media platform,  or a student publication.

CONCLUSION 

Student and youth media in Serbia currently operate in an environment that is both  underregulated and high-risk. They are not merely a “training ground for journalism” or a  peripheral segment of the media landscape. At a time when much of public life has shifted to  the streets, social media, universities, local elections, and informal communication channels,  young journalists, student newsrooms, and youth media platforms have often been among  the first to document events, report developments, and explain to their generation what is  happening around them. 

However, this report demonstrates that, for young people, entering the journalism profession  is increasingly unlikely to begin in a safe and professional environment. For many of them, their first assignment is not a press conference but a protest. Their first professional challenge  is not simply how to write a news story, but how to protect their phone, remain in contact with  their editor, recognize potential risks, know whom to contact if they are attacked, and  determine whether public institutions will even recognize them as journalists. 

Although the interviewees describe different experiences, a common pattern clearly emerges.  Formal protection is often lacking, procedures remain underdeveloped, and journalists’ safety  depends largely on individual judgment, the solidarity of colleagues, and the speed with which  a newsroom can respond to a crisis. In this sense, student and youth media operate within a  paradox. They are expected to be professional, responsive, accountable, and to serve the  public interest, while at the same time they are rarely provided with the conditions necessary  for professional journalism: stable funding, legal support, safety training, digital security,  psychological assistance, and institutional recognition. 

It is particularly significant that the risks faced by young journalists do not end once they leave  the field. They continue in the form of hostile comments, threatening messages, targeted  harassment, attempts to compromise personal accounts, and, perhaps most importantly,  institutional silence. When reports receive no follow-up, when threats are not recognized as  threats, when attacks are downplayed, or when responsibility is shifted onto the journalist  who documented the incident, a clear message is conveyed: young journalists may be visible,  but they are not necessarily protected.

For this reason, the issue of student and youth media cannot be reduced to the question of  their sustainability as project-based initiatives. It is, fundamentally, a question about the future  of journalism itself. If young people enter the profession through unpaid work, improvised  safety protocols, and repeated experiences of attacks that go unpunished, then the problem  extends far beyond the survival of individual newsrooms. It means that an entire generation  of journalists is being socialized into believing that insecurity is simply an inherent part of the  profession. 

These media outlets demonstrate that young people possess knowledge, courage, solidarity,  and a strong sense of public responsibility. They also show that there is an audience for their  work—particularly at times when traditional media fail to communicate in ways that resonate  with younger generations or overlook issues that matter to them. However, enthusiasm  cannot substitute for a functioning system. Solidarity cannot serve as the sole mechanism of  protection. Nor can volunteerism provide a sustainable foundation for work carried out in the  public interest. 

The key finding of this report, therefore, is that student and youth media should be recognized  as an integral and relevant part of the media ecosystem rather than as its periphery. Ensuring  their protection, providing them with training, and supporting their financial sustainability is  not simply about helping young people “try their hand at journalism.” It is an investment in a  public sphere that, in the years ahead, will continue to depend on journalists who are willing  to go into the field, ask difficult questions, verify information, and publish facts that others  seek to conceal. 

In a country where young journalists are increasingly learning to work under pressure before  they ever have the opportunity to work in a stable newsroom, the question is no longer simply  whether they are prepared for journalism. The real question is whether the system is prepared  to protect them. 

 

This publication was produced with the financial support of the European Union. Its contents  are the sole responsibility of the Association of Independent Electronic Media and do not  necessarily reflect the views of the European Union.