KRIK lost another lawsuit, the one initiated against the newsroom by the current Minister of Defense Bratislav Gašić, this outlet announced yesterday. The Court of Appeal confirmed the first-instance verdict against journalist Milica Vojinović and editor Stevan Dojčinović because they published a report from the trial of the criminal group of Zoran Jotić Jotka, in which they cited the wiretapped conversation of members of this group about Gašić, who was then the director of the BIA (Security Intelligence Agency in Serbia).
In one of those conversations, Gašić is referred to as someone who is “in the cauldron” of Jotka. Journalists explained that in this context, “being on the cauldron” means that a person is on someone’s payroll.
The Appeals Court states in its verdict: “The average reader cannot conclude that the expression ‘to be on the cauldron’ means that the prosecutor is on the payroll,” but does not provide any explanation of what else the expression could mean. The reasoning also states that the information from the audio recording was presented by journalists as fact, writes KRIK.
Independent Journalists’ Association of Serbia (IJAS) believes that by explaining the meaning of the expression “to be in the cauldron”, the journalists did not change the meaning of what was stated at the trial. Journalists also gave Minister Gašić a chance to express his opinion regarding the allegations which were recorded, and he refused to do so. It shows that they respected professional journalistic standards and the Law on Public Information and Media. Therefore, it is clear that the statement in the audio recording was not presented as fact.
When it comes to reporting from the trial, the recommendations of the OSCE are that “the truth of someone’s testimony is decided by the court, and the journalist’s job is to convey to his audience the essence of the specific event as faithfully as possible.” In the recommendations, it is added that “if there is a need, in the report, someone’s statement can be put in the context of another statement or evidence with which it is in conflict, but an impartial position must be maintained”.
KRIK journalists gave context and conveyed the essence to the audience precisely by clarifying the expression “being on someone’s cauldron”.
According to KRIK, the judges in the explanation of the verdict also state that journalists must be more tolerant towards Gašić precisely because he is the official who led the BIA.
“It is about an official who performs the job of director of the Security and Information Agency, from whom the public expects strong moral and professional competence, which reinforces the negative impression that the average reader gets from reading the article,” the verdict states.
IJAS points out that this assessment of the court panel is in contradiction with the Law on Public Information and Media. In fact, politicians are the ones who should endure criticism and answer journalists’ questions.
“An elected, appointed, or appointed holder of public and political office is obliged to tolerate the expression of critical opinions, which relate to the results of his work, i.e. the policy he implements, and is related to the performance of his office, regardless of whether he feels personally injured by the expression of those opinions” (Article 8 of the Law on Public Information and Media).
In this case, it is news of exceptional public interest since a high-ranking government official is mentioned in conversations that police recorded.
IJAS believes that such a verdict is harmful to the freedom of the media and that it introduces censorship into the sphere of information, and pushes journalists towards self-censorship.
Independent Journalists’ Association of Serbia (IJAS),
Belgrade, February 21, 2025
