Serbia: documented application of the same framework
Academic research base
Why is it not enough for accurate information to exist somewhere?
It is not enough that accurate information exists somewhere, because people have limited time, attention, money and the ability to check everything they hear. If reliable information is buried in a long document, published on a small website, available only after a lawsuit or risky for the one who transmits it, most citizens will practically not see it.
In contrast, a simple and constantly repeated claim can reach almost anyone, even when it is incorrect. Information freedom is therefore not only the absence of a ban, but also the actual availability, visibility and security of the source. Even the fact seen does not automatically change the opinion: it is important to whom people trust, whether they can connect it with their own experience and whether they have someone to talk to publicly about its meaning.
The exact news of abuse can be published on the research portal, but many citizens will not see it if the national-range TV is silent, if the algorithm pushes more popular content or if the findings are immediately swamped with attacks and other topics. In Serbia, critical information exists, while measurements show that a large audience is much more often reached by a version of the government. The existence of truth is therefore not the same as its social availability and consequences.
How the finding is separated in the matrix
CRTA measures a major imbalance in television representation, while research media and organizations publish documented cases that often do not receive a comparable continuation in dominant media or institutions. The same local sources show that the problem is not only whether critical news exists, but whether the editorial board that publishes it can financially survive against the media with concentrated public revenues.
In order for information to change behavior, people need to notice it, understand it, consider it credible, talk about it, and see that the institution can react.
Yes Serbian example clearly distinguishes the formal availability from the actual range and effect.
Different audiences choose different media, and poor visibility does not have only a political cause. For the claim of intentional suppression, additional evidence of decision, pressure or financing pattern is needed.
The fact that someone saw the information does not mean that they believed or changed their behavior. Previous attitudes, trust and people with whom they talk are important.
Works supporting this answer, with their evidence type and an explanation of how they relate to the claim.
Explain how the system works
Petrova, M. (2008), „Inequality and Media Capture“, Journal of Public Economics 92(1–2): 183–212.
- Contribution to this answer
- Petrova shows that the very existence of information is not enough if economically powerful actors can influence what the media will publish and how they will present a topic. What citizens really find out also depends on who can pay the price of the impact on the information space.
Explain how the system works
Gehlbach, S. i Sonin, K. (2014), „Government Control of the Media“, Journal of Public Economics 118: 163–171.
- Contribution to this answer
- Gehlbach and Sonin show that it is important not only if there is some information, but through what kind of media people come to him and how much they trust him. The government therefore balances between the media that push her message more strongly and the media that are credible enough that this message can affect the audience at all.
research that checks more closely what the cause is
Roberts, M. E. (2018), Censored: Distraction and Diversion Inside China’s Great Firewall, Princeton University Press.
- Contribution to this answer
- Roberts gives perhaps the most direct answer to the question: you don’t have to make information unavailable it’s enough to make access a little slower, harder or more strenuous. Most people won’t put in extra time and effort every time, so very “porous” censorship can strongly change what people eventually see.
research that checks more closely what the cause is
Milli, S. i dr. (2025), „Engagement, user satisfaction, and the amplification of divisive content on social media“, PNAS Nexus 4(3): pgaf062.
- Contribution to this answer
- Milli and co-authors show that even among the available information, the platform does not choose neutrally: ranking based on engagement enhances emotionally charged and hostile content compared to chronological display even content that users themselves did not say they wanted to see anymore. That is why “it’s right somewhere on the Internet” does not mean “it has an equal chance of reaching me”.
research that checks more closely what the cause is
Brady, W. J., McLoughlin, K., Doan, T. N. i Crockett, M. J. (2021), „How Social Learning Amplifies Moral Outrage Expression in Online Social Networks“, Science Advances 7(33): eabe5641.
Brady, W. J., McLoughlin, K., Doan, T. N. i Crockett, M. J. (2021), "How Social Learning Amplifies Moral Outrage Expression in Online Social Networks", Science Advances 7(33): eabe5641.
- Contribution to this answer
- Brady and the co-authors show another mechanism that has nothing to do with central propaganda: when the expression of resentment receives positive reactions from other users, people repeat it more often, and they also adapt to the norms of the network in which they are located. The information space can therefore systematically amplify one type of content without anyone centrally ordering what should be visible.
Sources supporting the Serbia example, with the claim they support and their limitations.
Domestic NGOs systematic media monitoring - Verified 21.08.2026
CRTA. 2025. Media Monitoring of Political Pluralism: Government in Focus, Opposition Almost Invisible. Beograd: CRTA.
- What the source records
- Monitoring finds that more than half of the time intended for political actors went to the president, who had 354 live television broadcasts and almost exclusively neutral or positive treatment.
- Claim it supports
- Claim that the published accurate information does not have the same social impact if it has no range, a continuation in the dominant media and an institutional reaction.
- Source limitation
- The sample includes the central news of five national TV stations, but does not measure all media, the entire program offer, the audience or the direct impact of such reporting on voting.
Domestic investigative journalism a specific case - Verified 21.08.2026
Milosavljević, Ivana, Teodora Ćurčić i Vladimir Kostić. 2023. CINS Inside SNS’s Call Center: Hostess Agency, Vote Buying, and Millions in Cash. Beograd: CINS.
Milosavljević, Ivana, Teodora určić and Vladimir Kostić. 2023. CINS Inside SNS’s Call Center: Hostess Agency, Vote Buying, and Millions in Cash. Belgrade: CINS.
- What the source records
- CINS journalist documented firsthand the work of a large col-centre, cash payments and job offer related to voting, which raises suspicions of vote buying, illegal financing and misuse of personal data.
- Claim it supports
- Claim that the published accurate information does not have the same social impact if it has no range, a continuation in the dominant media and an institutional reaction.
- Source limitation
- The investigation documents one operation and serious doubts, but it is not a court epilogue or proof that the same practice is being carried out everywhere or that each participant knew the full purpose of the system.
Domestic media associations survey and qualitative research - Verified 21.08.2026
Asocijacija medija, AOM, NDNV, NUNS, Lokal pres i Slavko Ćuruvija fondacija. 2023. Strategija razvoja medijskog sistema Srbije (2020–2025) i njena implementacija: saznanja, stavovi i predlozi medijskih radnika. Beograd.
Media Association, AOM, NDNV, NUNS, Local Press and Slavko Curuvija Foundation. 2023. Strategy of development of media system of Serbia (2020-2025) and its implementation: findings, attitudes and proposals of media workers. Belgrade.
- What the source records
- Respondents describe the gap between formal rules and implementation, political influence through financing and regulators, as well as low confidence in the institutions of protection of media freedom.
- Claim it supports
- Claim that the published accurate information does not have the same social impact if it has no range, a continuation in the dominant media and an institutional reaction.
- Source limitation
- The sample of media workers and interviews do not represent all the newsrooms or the entire audience; they find measures of experience and attitudes of the professional community.
Reviewed scientific work - Verified 21.08.2026
Dragojlov, Aleksandra. 2026. “Influence of Political Clientelism on Media Freedom under Vučić and the Progressive Party.” Nationalities Papers 54(2): 391–407. https://doi.org/10.1017/nps.2025.25
Dragojlov, Aleksandra. 2026. “Influence of Political Clientelism on Media Freedom under Vucic and the Progressive Party.” Nationalities Papers 54(2): 39107. https://doi.org/10.1017/nps.2025.25
- What the source records
- The paper concludes that subtle mechanisms of indirect control undermined media freedom despite the formal adoption of new laws.
- Claim it supports
- Claim that the published accurate information does not have the same social impact if it has no range, a continuation in the dominant media and an institutional reaction.
- Source limitation
- It is focused on the media sector and relies partly on a limited number of professional interviews.
Local media network comparative analysis - Verified 21.08.2026
Lokal pres. 2026. State Advertising at the Local Level. Kragujevac: Lokal pres.
- What the source records
- Document that critical local media operate in a market where selected competitors receive concentrated public revenues.
- Claim it supports
- Explains why the existence of accurate local information is not enough if the media that publishes it does not have comparable range and sustainability.
- Source limitation
- The survey covers one year and eight local self-governments; EMFA standards used as a benchmark are not yet fully enshrined in domestic law.
Local NGOs comparative analysis of media financing - Verified 21.08.2026
Res Publika. 2026. Propaganda vs. javni interes: Analiza projektnog finansiranja i medijskog pluralizma u lokalnim zajednicama. Kragujevac: Res Publika.
Res Publika. 2026. Propaganda vs. Public Interest: Analysis of Project Financing and Media Pluralism in Local Communities. Kragujevac: Res Publika.
- What the source records
- It shows that a large part of the local media budget can be directed to content that promotes power, while pluralism remains weak.
- Claim it supports
- Explains how publicly funded promotional content can suppress accurate and critical information from everyday local space.
- Source limitation
- Comparing one competition year in five local self-governments and complementing it with journalistic texts; it shows the mechanism and cases well, but does not measure its frequency throughout Serbia.
Is a relevant source missing? Send it to us.
Suggest a source or report an error in this answer →