On the monitoring of media service providers (MSPs) under the jurisdiction of the Regulatory Authority for Electronic Media (REM) from Serbia during the presidential election campaign in Montenegro
The Bureau for Social Research – BIRODI conducted the monitoring of reporting by media service providers (MSPs) in Serbia regarding the presidential election in Montenegro, which took place on March 19, 2023 (first round) and April 2 (second round).
The legal basis for conducting the monitoring of reporting is:
- The Law on Electronic Media, Article 24[1]
- The Law on Ratification of the European Convention on Cross-Border Cooperation[2]
The European Convention on Transfrontier Television (ECTT)of the Council of Europe[3] (Strasbourg, 1989), which regulates the transfrontier transmission and retransmission of television programme services, has been ratified by 34 countries[4], while 7 countries have signed but not ratified the document.
All countries of the Western Balkans, as well as other countries in the region, are signatories to this convention. They have committed to ensuring freedom of expression and information on their territories, as well as freedom of reception and retransmission of programme services in accordance with Article 4 of the European Convention on Transfrontier Television (ECTT), which is based on Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The ECTT defines the obligations of countries, national regulatory bodies, and broadcasters, as well as the mechanisms to ensure cooperation among the signatory countries in the implementation of the convention, and the procedure to be followed in cases of violations of its provisions.
The countries that are signatories to the ECTT, including the countries in the region, are obliged to ensure that all broadcasters under their jurisdiction comply with the provisions of the convention. This also means that they are required to take action in cases where the convention is violated.
In addition to being signatories to the European Convention on Transfrontier Television (ECTT), the countries of the Western Balkans, as EU candidate countries or potential candidates, are obliged to incorporate provisions from European regulations into their media legislation.Specifically, they are expected to adopt solutions from the EU Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD), which was adopted in 2010 and revised in 2018. The AVMSD regulates issues covered by the ECTT but in more detail, and unlike the ECTT, it covers the entire audiovisual sector (TV, radio, on-demand audiovisual services, and online video-sharing platforms[5]), rather than just television programs.
When selecting the media service providers (MSPs) included in the sample for monitoring the reporting, we considered the fact that MSPs have an impact on the territory of Montenegro through their broadcasting and retransmission of programs.
According to the data available from the Agency for Electronic Media of Montenegro, as of March 2022[6], on the territory of Montenegro:
- Cable television is the primary source of information for 77.1% of households
- Television channels from the region are the source of information for 26.9% of the population
- Regarding the MSPs under the jurisdiction of the Regulatory Authority for Electronic Media (REM), 8.4% of the population of Montenegro is informed through TV Pink, 8% use TV Prva as a source, 2.4% use RTS as a source, and 0.9% use TV Happy.
- Morning programs, which are MSPs under the jurisdiction of REM, are considered an important format for citizen information (Pink – 6%, Prva – 2.6%, Happy – 0.9%, and RTS – 0.8%)
- The political show Ćirilica on TV Happy was primarily followed by 1% of the respondents.
Based on the presented data, the monitoring of reporting on the presidential elections in Montenegro included:
- RTS,
- Pink,
- Happy,
- Prva and
- B92
The monitoring of reporting by MSPs focused on features and programs in which the topic was the presidential elections in Montenegro and/or the present Montenegrin presidential candidates. In this context, the following aspects were analyzed:
- Time allocation for different actors in the coverage
- Tone of media reporting on the actors
- Themes addressed in the analyzed news items
- Arguments used by the actors in the analyzed items
- Discourse and behavior of the actors in the analyzed items
Quantitative analysis
Based on the thematic framework of the news items analyzed in both rounds, the participants in the analyzed shows focused mostly on the following topics: election results, general election-related discussions, Montenegro-Serbia relations, candidate nominations, democracy crisis in Montenegro, Montenegro-EU relations, and anti-Serbian agenda in Montenegro.
Table 1 Thematic structure of analyzed features
|
Topic |
Number |
|
Election results |
132 |
|
Elections in general |
117 |
|
Montenegro-Serbia relations |
75 |
|
Candidate nominations |
44 |
|
Democracy crisis |
43 |
|
Montenegro-EU relations |
41 |
|
Anti-Serbian agenda in Montenegro |
39 |
|
Organized crime in Montenegro |
34 |
|
Economy of Montenegro |
22 |
|
Montenegro’s relations with the international community |
20 |
|
Status of the Serbian Orthodox Church (SPC) in Montenegro |
20 |
|
The Open Balkan |
16 |
|
Montenegro’s relations with Russia |
14 |
|
Reconciliation in Montenegro |
11 |
|
The Kosovo issue |
9 |
|
Dissolution of the Parliament of Montenegro |
8 |
|
Corruption in Montenegro |
7 |
|
Announcement of presidential candidates’ debates |
6 |
|
Actions of the Constitutional Court of Montenegro |
2 |
|
Women’s and minority rights in Montenegro |
2 |
|
Media freedom in Montenegro |
1 |
In addition to the thematic structure, the monitoring of reporting by MSPs during the presidential election campaign in Montenegro also involved analyzing the presence of key processes for Montenegro as a state.
According to the data from Table 2, the analyzed news items predominantly discussed the following processes:Montenegro’s EU accession process, further democratization process particularly highlighting past deficiencies during the rule of Milo Đukanović, the position of Serbs in Montenegro from the perspective of Serbia regarding the status and rights of the Serbian community in Montenegro, and the status of the Serbian Orthodox Church.
Table 2 The analysis of the presence of socio-political processes in the analyzed news items
|
Processes |
Number |
|
Montenegro’s EU accession process |
50 |
|
Democratization of Montenegro |
34 |
|
Position of Serbs in Montenegro and the status of the Serbian Orthodox Church |
23 |
|
Regional integrations (The Berlin Process and the Open Balkan) |
17 |
|
Rule of law in Montenegro |
8 |
|
NATO membership |
4 |
|
Minority rights in Montenegro |
1 |
From an analytical and media perspective, it was important to examine the arguments used by actors in the monitored news items.
The findings from Table 3 indicate that the main voices were politicians and election candidates, journalists presenting factual information, opinions of analysts and experts, as well as the perspectives of journalists themselves. The views of citizens and public opinion polls were given less prominence. It should be noted that when discussing analysts, there is a group in Serbia whose task is to further the political agenda of those in power.
Table 3 Arguments in analyzed news items
|
Type of argument |
Number |
|
Views of politicians/ candidates |
126 |
|
Information conveyed by journalists |
124 |
|
Opinion of analysts |
118 |
|
Opinion of journalists |
101 |
|
Opinion of experts |
75 |
|
Opinion of public officials |
30 |
|
Quoting politicians /candidates |
29 |
|
Opinions of citizens |
22 |
|
Research by civil society organizations |
2 |
The findings regarding argumentation also speak of the general nature of the news items in terms of the discourses present. The analyzed items were dominated by informative, critical-analytical, promotional, as well as tabloid discourses. This indicates that the media primarily focused on the electoral actors by either supporting a particular candidate or attempting to undermine them. This finding also suggests that some of the media service providers preferred to stay neutral regarding the presidential elections in Serbia. The analysis of the electoral process took a backseat.
Table 3 Discourse in analyzed news items
|
Discourse of news items |
Number |
|
Informative |
274 |
|
Analytical/critical |
81 |
|
Promotional |
52 |
|
Tabloid |
38 |
|
Propagandistic |
6 |
|
Servicemen |
2 |
|
Dialogical |
2 |
|
Advocacy |
1 |
The data from Table 4 show that the most prominent actor during the first round of the presidential election campaign in Montenegro was Andrija Mandić, the third-placed candidate in the race for the President of Montenegro.
In terms of representation by the analyzed MSPs, the second most prominent actor was the incumbent President of Montenegro, Milo Đukanović, while the winner of the presidential election in Montenegro, Jakov Milatović, ranked third with nearly three times less airtime.
It is important to note that Milo Đukanović was a leader in “indirect representation,” as he was mostly mentioned in relation to others. Among the top three candidates on the observed television channels, Andrija Mandić had the highest direct mentions, giving him the opportunity to express his own views.
The presence of other Montenegrin presidential candidates in the observed television programs was almost negligible, so for methodological and statistical reasons, the focus of the analysis will be on the top three candidates, with tabular presentation of results for all candidates.
Table 4 Candidate representation during the two rounds of the presidential election campaign in Montenegro on MSPs under the jurisdiction of the Regulatory Authority for Electronic Media (REM)
|
|
First round |
Second round |
Aggregate |
|||||||
|
Total |
Direct[7] |
Indirect |
Total |
Direct |
Indirect |
Total |
Percent |
Indirect |
Direct |
|
|
Milo Đukanović |
12790[8] |
5174 |
7616 |
17843 |
868 |
16975 |
6042 |
42% |
24591 |
6042 |
|
Andrija Mandić |
8223 |
5700 |
2523 |
3324 |
472 |
2852 |
6172 |
43% |
5375 |
6172 |
|
Draginja Vuksanović Stanković |
432 |
55 |
377 |
393 |
0 |
393 |
55 |
0% |
770 |
55 |
|
Jakov Milatović |
1368 |
225 |
1143 |
11226 |
1456 |
9770 |
1681 |
12% |
10913 |
1681 |
|
Goran Danilović |
150 |
47 |
103 |
35 |
0 |
35 |
47 |
0% |
138 |
47 |
|
Jovan Radulović Jodžir |
124 |
0 |
124 |
40 |
0 |
40 |
164 |
1% |
164 |
0 |
|
Aleksa Bečić |
721 |
50 |
671 |
583 |
8 |
575 |
58 |
0% |
1246 |
58 |
When looking at Table 5, which contains data on the tone of representation of the presidential candidates, it is evident that in the first round of analyzed news items on the presidential elections in Montenegro, Andrija Mandić was portrayed most positively (60.7%), while Milo Đukanović was portrayed most negatively (80.5%). Jakov Milatović, on the other hand, had a relatively balanced representation.
Unlike the first round, in the second round, Milo Đukanović was portrayed neutrally on average (88.2%), while Jakov Milatović was portrayed positively for 2/3 of the time (62.8%).
Table 5 Tone of portrayal of candidates during the two rounds of the presidential election campaign in Montenegro on MSPs under the jurisdiction of the Regulatory Authority for Electronic Media (REM).
|
First round |
Second round |
|||||||
|
Total number of seconds |
Negative |
Neutral |
Positive |
Total number of seconds |
Negative |
Neutral |
Positive |
|
|
Milo Đukanović |
24591 |
80,5 |
13,1 |
6,3 |
6042 |
7,7 |
88,2 |
4,0 |
|
Andrija Mandić |
5375 |
16,5 |
22,8 |
60,7 |
6172 |
9,9 |
85,0 |
5,1 |
|
Draginja Vuksanović Stanković |
770 |
82,6 |
17,4 |
0,0 |
55 |
89,1 |
10,9 |
0,0 |
|
Jakov Milatović |
10913 |
20,9 |
30,2 |
48,9 |
1681 |
0,0 |
37,2 |
62,8 |
|
Goran Danilović |
138 |
59,4 |
40,6 |
0,0 |
47 |
0,0 |
100,0 |
0,0 |
|
Jovan Radulović Jodžir |
164 |
93,9 |
6,1 |
0,0 |
0,0 |
0,0 |
0,0 |
0,0 |
|
Aleksa Bečić |
1246 |
21,2 |
73,8 |
5,0 |
58 |
20,7 |
79,3 |
0,0 |
On Radio Television of Serbia (RTS), in the first round, Milo Đukanović, Jakov Milatović, and Andrija Mandić had the highest amount of indirect representation. The same trio also had the most time to directly present themselves to the voters and express their views. This cannot be said for the other candidates as they were minimally represented.
In the second round, Đukanović had more indirect representation, meaning that actors spoke about him more than he had the opportunity to present his own views. On the other hand, Jakov Milatović had more media space to present his program.
Table 6 Representation of candidates during the two rounds of the presidential election campaign in Montenegro on RTS
|
|
First electoral round |
Second electoral round |
Total time |
|||
|
Indirect |
Direct |
Indirect |
Direct |
Indirect |
Direct |
|
|
Sum |
Sum |
Sum |
Sum |
Sum |
Sum |
|
|
Milo Đukanović |
1079 |
147 |
2568 |
263 |
3647 |
410 |
|
Andrija Mandić |
648 |
101 |
564 |
145 |
1212 |
246 |
|
Draginja Vuksanović Stanković |
110 |
55 |
66 |
0 |
176 |
55 |
|
Jakov Milatović |
766 |
225 |
2197 |
769 |
2963 |
994 |
|
Goran Danilović |
56 |
47 |
0 |
0 |
56 |
47 |
|
Jovan Radulović Jodžir |
81 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
81 |
0 |
|
Aleksa Bečić |
471 |
40 |
262 |
8 |
733 |
48 |
During the first round, Milo Đukanović, along with Draginja Vukasnović Stanković, had the most negative representation in terms of indirect presentation, with 50.4% of negative time. On the other hand, Jakov Milatović and Andrija Mandić were the candidates who were mostly positively or neutrally represented in the first round.
In the analyzed segments of RTS coverage during the second round, Milo Đukanović was negatively represented in the part of indirect presentation (49.5%), while Jakov Milatović shifted to neutral representation (63.5%).
Table 7Tone of presentation of candidates during the two rounds of the presidential election campaign in Montenegro on RTS (indirect representation)
|
|
First round of election |
|||||
|
Negative |
Neutral |
Positive |
||||
|
Number of seconds |
% |
Number of seconds |
% |
Number of seconds |
% |
|
|
Milo Đukanović |
1079 |
50,4 |
535 |
49,6 |
0 |
0 |
|
Andrija Mandić |
648 |
0 |
338 |
52,2 |
310 |
47,8 |
|
Draginja Vuksanović Stanković |
110 |
78,2 |
24 |
21,8 |
0 |
0 |
|
Jakov Milatović |
766 |
0 |
391 |
51 |
375 |
49 |
|
Goran Danilović |
56 |
0 |
56 |
100 |
0 |
0 |
|
Jovan Radulović Jodžir |
81 |
100 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Aleksa Bečić |
471 |
48,6 |
242 |
51,4 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
Second round of election |
|||||
|
|
Negative |
Neutral |
Positive |
|||
|
|
Number of seconds |
% |
Number of seconds |
% |
Number of seconds |
% |
|
Milo Đukanović |
1272 |
49,5 |
1296 |
50,5 |
0 |
0 |
|
Andrija Mandić |
123 |
21,8 |
248 |
44 |
193 |
34,2 |
|
Draginja Vuksanović Stanković |
37 |
56,1 |
29 |
43,9 |
0 |
0 |
|
Jakov Milatović |
67 |
3 |
1396 |
63,5 |
734 |
33,4 |
|
Goran Danilović |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Jovan Radulović Jodžir |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Aleksa Bečić |
0 |
0 |
218 |
83,2 |
44 |
16,8 |
Pink TV is the second television outlet we will examine.
According to the monitoring findings relating to the largest commercial television station in Serbia, on this television channel, Milo Đukanović was the candidate who had the highest amount of indirect representation, while Andrija Mandić had the most opportunities to speak directly. The newly elected President of Montenegro, Jakov Milatović, was among the marginally represented presidential candidates in the first round of the campaign.
In the second round, we observe an increase in the presence of Milo Đukanović and Jakov Milatović in terms of indirect representation, with Jakov Milatović experiencing a nearly thirty-fold increase in indirect representation.
Table 8 Representation of candidates during the two rounds of the presidential election campaign in Montenegro on Pink TV
|
First round of election |
Second round of election |
Total time |
||||
|
Indirect |
Direct |
Indirect |
Direct |
Indirect |
Direct |
|
|
Sum |
Sum |
Sum |
Sum |
Sum |
Sum |
|
|
Milo Đukanović |
1091 |
0 |
1956 |
102 |
3047 |
102 |
|
Andrija Mandić |
338 |
594 |
318 |
41 |
656 |
635 |
|
Draginja Vuksanović Stanković |
6 |
0 |
17 |
0 |
23 |
0 |
|
Jakov Milatović |
30 |
0 |
1035 |
102 |
1065 |
102 |
|
Goran Danilović |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Jovan Radulović Jodžir |
6 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
10 |
0 |
|
Aleksa Bečić |
6 |
10 |
15 |
0 |
21 |
10 |
Observing the tone of representation solely within the framework of indirect portrayal of actors on Pink TV, the most negatively represented actors in the first round were Andrija Mandić (74%) and Milo Đukanović (41.1%), while Jakov Milatović was neutrally represented with 100% of the time he received in the first round, which was 30 seconds.
Table 9 Tone of representation of candidates during the two rounds of the presidential election campaign in Montenegro on Pink TV (indirect representation)
|
|
First round of election |
|||||
|
Negative |
Neutral |
Positive |
||||
|
Number of seconds |
% |
Number of seconds |
% |
Number of seconds |
% |
|
|
Milo Đukanović |
448 |
41,1 |
0 |
0 |
643 |
58,9 |
|
Andrija Mandić |
250 |
74 |
16 |
4,7 |
72 |
21,3 |
|
Draginja Vuksanović Stanković |
0 |
0 |
6 |
100 |
0 |
0 |
|
Jakov Milatović |
0 |
0 |
30 |
100 |
0 |
0 |
|
Goran Danilović |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
Jovan Radulović Jodžir |
0 |
0 |
6 |
100 |
0 |
0 |
|
Aleksa Bečić |
0 |
0 |
6 |
100 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
Second round of election |
|||||
|
Negative |
Neutral |
Positive |
||||
|
Milo Đukanović |
1615 |
82,6 |
283 |
14,5 |
58 |
3 |
|
Andrija Mandić |
0 |
48 |
15,1 |
270 |
84,9 |
|
|
Draginja Vuksanović Stanković |
12 |
70,6 |
5 |
29,4 |
0 |
0 |
|
Jakov Milatović |
39 |
3,8 |
503 |
48,6 |
493 |
47,6 |
|
Goran Danilović |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
Jovan Radulović Jodžir |
0 |
0 |
4 |
100 |
0 |
0 |
|
Aleksa Bečić |
0 |
0 |
15 |
100 |
0 |
0 |
TV Happy is a television station that closely followed the presidential elections in Montenegro. On this MSP, the highest amount of indirect representation in the first round of the presidential elections was attributed to former President Milo Đukanović, followed by Andrija Mandić in second place, Draginja Vuksanović Stanković in third place, and Jakov Milatović in fourth place. In the second round, when Đukanović and Milatović “went head-to-head,” Milo Đukanović had 362 seconds of direct airtime, while Jakov Milatović had 0 seconds.
Table 8 Representation of candidates during the two rounds of the presidential election campaign in Montenegro on Happy TV
|
First round of election |
Second round of election |
Total time |
||||
|
Indirect |
Direct |
Indirect |
Direct |
Indirect |
Direct |
|
|
Sum |
Sum |
Sum |
Sum |
Sum |
Sum |
|
|
Milo Đukanović |
5280 |
118 |
10722 |
362 |
16002 |
480 |
|
Andrija Mandić |
1408 |
0 |
1939 |
254 |
3347 |
254 |
|
Draginja Vuksanović Stanković |
460 |
0 |
418 |
0 |
878 |
0 |
|
Jakov Milatović |
261 |
0 |
310 |
0 |
571 |
0 |
|
Goran Danilović |
330 |
0 |
5766 |
380 |
6096 |
380 |
|
Jovan Radulović Jodžir |
47 |
0 |
35 |
0 |
82 |
0 |
|
Aleksa Bečić |
37 |
0 |
36 |
0 |
73 |
0 |
Analyzing the tone of representation in the first round of the presidential election campaign, Milo Đukanović was portrayed 100% negatively. Alongside Đukanović, the winner of the presidential election in Montenegro, Jakov Milatović, was predominantly negatively represented in the first round (64.2%). The only positive figure on TV Happy was Andrija Mandić, with 75.6% positive airtime.
This situation was altered in the second round, as Milo Đukanović was predominantly represented with negative airtime (86%), while Jakov Milatović had predominantly positive airtime (68.9%).
Table 11. Tone of representation of candidates during the two rounds of the presidential election campaign in Montenegro on Happy TV (indirect representation)
|
|
First round of election |
|||||
|
Negative |
Neutral |
Positive |
||||
|
Number of seconds |
% |
Number of seconds |
% |
Number of seconds |
% |
|
|
Milo Đukanović |
5280 |
100,0 |
0,0 |
0,0 |
||
|
Andrija Mandić |
274 |
19,5 |
69 |
4,9 |
1065 |
75,6 |
|
Draginja Vuksanović Stanković |
261 |
100,0 |
0,0 |
0,0 |
||
|
Jakov Milatović |
212 |
64,2 |
84 |
25,5 |
34 |
10,3 |
|
Goran Danilović |
47 |
100,0 |
0,0 |
0,0 |
||
|
Jovan Radulović Jodžir |
37 |
100,0 |
0,0 |
0,0 |
||
|
Aleksa Bečić |
35 |
18,0 |
141 |
72,7 |
18 |
9,3 |
|
|
Second round of election |
|||||
|
Negative |
Neutral |
Positive |
||||
|
Milo Đukanović |
9221 |
86,0 |
682 |
6,4 |
819 |
7,6 |
|
Andrija Mandić |
238 |
12,3 |
347 |
17,9 |
1354 |
69,8 |
|
Draginja Vuksanović Stanković |
240 |
77,4 |
70 |
22,6 |
0,0 |
|
|
Jakov Milatović |
1834 |
31,8 |
521 |
9,0 |
3411 |
59,2 |
|
Goran Danilović |
35 |
100,0 |
0,0 |
0,0 |
||
|
Jovan Radulović Jodžir |
36 |
100,0 |
0,0 |
0,0 |
||
|
Aleksa Bečić |
0,0 |
289 |
100,0 |
0,0 |
||
TV Prva’s coverage of the Montenegrin presidential elections gained significant momentum during the second round, primarily focusing on key contenders Milo Đukanović and Jakov Milatović. Notably, Milo Đukanović received a greater amount of indirect airtime, as he was frequently discussed by other participants during this period.
The ratio of indirect to direct airtime for Đukanović on TV Prva during the second round was 1717:141 seconds.
Table12Representation of candidates during the two rounds of the presidential election campaign in Montenegro on TVPrva
|
First round of election |
Second round of election |
Total time |
||||
|
Indirect |
Direct |
Indirect |
Direct |
Indirect |
Direct |
|
|
Sum |
Sum |
Sum |
Sum |
Sum |
Sum |
|
|
Milo Đukanović |
128 |
0 |
1717 |
141 |
1845 |
141 |
|
Andrija Mandić |
91 |
0 |
26 |
32 |
117 |
32 |
|
Draginja Vuksanović Stanković |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Jakov Milatović |
17 |
0 |
748 |
205 |
765 |
205 |
|
Goran Danilović |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Jovan Radulović Jodžir |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Aleksa Bečić |
0 |
0 |
9 |
0 |
9 |
0 |
In the reporting of TV Prva during the first round of presidential elections in Montenegro, a neutral tone dominated the presentation of all candidates who had any appearance on this television channel. In the second round, there was a change in which Milo Đukanović was portrayed as the antagonist with 82.3% of negative airtime, while Jakov Milatović had 44% neutral and 38.2% positive airtime in the second round on TV Prva.
Table 13 Tone of representation of candidates during the two rounds of the presidential election campaign in Montenegro on Happy TV (indirect representation)
|
|
First round of election |
|||||
|
Negative |
Neutral |
Positive |
||||
|
Number of seconds |
% |
Number of seconds |
% |
Number of seconds |
% |
|
|
Milo Đukanović |
0 |
0,0 |
128 |
100,0 |
0 |
0,0 |
|
Andrija Mandić |
0 |
0,0 |
91 |
100,0 |
0 |
0,0 |
|
Draginja Vuksanović Stanković |
0 |
0,0 |
0 |
0,0 |
0 |
0,0 |
|
Jakov Milatović |
0 |
0,0 |
17 |
100,0 |
0 |
0,0 |
|
Goran Danilović |
0 |
0,0 |
0 |
0,0 |
0 |
0,0 |
|
Jovan Radulović Jodžir |
0 |
0,0 |
0 |
0,0 |
0 |
0,0 |
|
Aleksa Bečić |
0 |
0,0 |
0 |
0,0 |
0 |
0,0 |
|
|
Second round of election |
|||||
|
Negative |
Neutral |
Positive |
||||
|
Milo Đukanović |
1428 |
83,2 |
257 |
15,0 |
32 |
1,9 |
|
Andrija Mandić |
0 |
0,0 |
26 |
100,0 |
0 |
0,0 |
|
Draginja Vuksanović Stanković |
0 |
0,0 |
0,0 |
0 |
0,0 |
|
|
Jakov Milatović |
133 |
17,8 |
329 |
44,0 |
286 |
38,2 |
|
Goran Danilović |
0,0 |
0,0 |
0 |
0,0 |
||
|
Jovan Radulović Jodžir |
0 |
0,0 |
0 |
0,0 |
0 |
0,0 |
|
Aleksa Bečić |
0 |
0,0 |
9 |
100,0 |
0 |
0,0 |
Television station B92 started and ended its coverage of the elections in Montenegro with the broadcast of a debate between two presidential candidates: Milo Đukanović and Andrija Mandić, which took place on TV Prva and TV E on March 16. [9]. Jakov Milatović, along with other candidates, did not receive attention from B92 journalists.
Analysis of covert advertising of election candidates
The subject of analysis in the monitoring of the media coverage by the MSPs under the jurisdiction of the Regulatory Authority for Electronic Media (REM) during the presidential election campaign includes “covert advertising of election candidates.” By “covert advertising of election candidates,” we refer to reporting that aims to either enhance or diminish the candidate’s chances of achieving their campaign goals. Broadly speaking, the media coverage by the observed MSPs can be divided into:
- Informational-analytical coverage
- Promotional-labeling coverage
In the first group, media service providers (MSPs) can be classified as those who presented all candidates in the presidential elections in Montenegro in a relatively equal manner in terms of time, meaning equal positive, neutral, and negative coverage. These television stations provided political biographies of the presidential candidates, their behavior during the candidacy process in terms of their readiness to accept the election outcome (primarily applicable to candidates opposing Milo Đukanović), and their electoral chances in the first and second rounds.
In their reports, journalists from these television stations highlighted the electoral conditions and specifically mentioned the incident in Cetinje where candidate Jakov Milatović was attacked, as well as the situation with the Constitutional Court. The coverage (of RTS and Prva TV) featured university professors as analysts who have expertise in the field of elections, as well as analysts specializing in public opinion research. It is worth noting that on March 16, TV station B92 broadcasted a pre-election duel between Milo Đukanović and Andrija Mandić, three days before the election. This is emphasized because there were no such duels featuring candidate Aleksandar Vučić in the previous electoral cycle during the presidential elections in Serbia. Radio-television gave the closest form of coverage to this.
In the second group of media service providers (MSPs), there were those who presented Andrija Mandić as a Serbian candidate in a positive light, while portraying Milo Đukanović as an anti-Serb, an opponent of the Serbian Orthodox Church, and the leader of a corrupt-criminal regime headed by him and his family. These MSPs also alleged that Đukanović had the support of the West.
In the programs of these MSPs, pro-government and pro-right-wing analysts were the most prominent actors, many of whom lacked expertise in the field of elections. Some of them were actively involved in the campaigns of presidential candidates in Montenegro without journalists disclosing this information. These analysts violated the provisions of the Rulebook on the Protection of Human Rights in the Field of Media Service Provision, particularly Article 27 regarding hate speech, and Article 29 regarding the presumption of innocence. Frequently, journalists in these programs served the purpose of promoting Andrija Mandić and portraying Milo Đukanović in a negative light. TV stations such as Happy and Pink predominantly adopted this type of reporting.
From the report on the monitoring of media coverage conducted by the Regulatory Authority for Electronic Media (REM) regarding the presidential elections in Montenegro, there were indications of covert advertising of electoral candidates.
This primarily applied to the candidate Andrija Mandić, who was presented as a “Serbian candidate” with support from the public in Serbia, as he represented the interests of the Serbian people in Montenegro. This finding mainly concerns TV Happy, which, in terms of coverage volume and representation of Andrija Mandić, as well as the choice of guests and topics, particularly in the morning program, favored Andrija Mandić as a candidate for the President of Montenegro to a level that can be characterized as “covert advertising of electoral candidates.” On this television station, Mandić was presented with ¾ positive airtime (75.6%).
If we were to consider the “criterion” of how Serbs in Montenegro were “presented” as a condition for fair treatment by media service providers (MSPs) in Serbia during the presidential elections, it can be observed that other “Serbian candidates” were not given the opportunity to present their programs on TV Happy or other MSPs under the jurisdiction of the REM.
In the promotion of Andrija Mandić as a presidential candidate who received covert media promotion on TV Happy, public officials and actors from the ruling parties in Serbia were not involved. Instead, pro-government analysts were featured, considering the current governments of Serbia and Montenegro.
Some of the analysts were directly involved in the campaigns of Montenegrin presidential candidates, which the presenters did not mention, thereby violating Articles 4 and 5 of the Rulebook on the Protection of Human Rights in the Field of Media Service Provision[10]. It is important to emphasize that a certain number of analysts who commented on the electoral process in Montenegro lacked expertise in the field of electoral processes and were part of the regular line-up of analysts (Pink and Happy).
This monitoring of MSPs’ coverage has also revealed a problem regarding the representation of analysts and experts. It often happened that individuals presented as experts did not possess the required level of education as prescribed by the National Standard Occupational Classification[11],and they lacked competence or expertise in the area they were commenting on, which affected the integrity of MSPs’ reporting.
When discussing covert advertising during the presidential elections in Montenegro, we refer to the use of analysts who utilize the “authority” of their profession, which implies independence and impartiality from electoral competitors. This creates an impression that what these analysts say is objective, while in reality, we have promotion (as in the case of Andrija Mandić), criticism to the point of labeling (as in the case of Milo Đukanović), and marginalization of a potential competitor to Andrija Mandić who shares the same electorate (as in the case of Jakov Milatović).
One of the instruments of covert advertising is the use of public opinion polls contrary to professional codes.This primarily refers to the Code of the World Association for Public Opinion Research[12]. In many analyzed programs, public opinion polls were presented as arguments about the electoral chances of presidential candidates. However, those who cited these surveys, namely analysts and researchers, did not provide details such as who commissioned the surveys, who conducted them, when and by which techniques the data were collected, the sample size and type, and the method of sample weighting.
For some of the mentioned data (the organization and implementation of the survey, sample size and type, data collection period and technique, and sampling error), there is an obligation to disclose them according to the Rulebook on the Protection of Human Rights in the Field of Media Service Provision, Article 16.
During the presentation of public opinion survey data, it was noticeable that the chances in the second round of elections were often omitted due to the electoral structure and Andrija Mandić’s political biography, presenting him as a less likely contender against Milo Đukanović, compared to Jakov Milatović.
The analyses presented by the analysts, primarily on TV Happy and TV Pink, created a narrative in the first round that there were two main candidates for the presidency of Montenegro: Milo Đukanović and Andrija Mandić. Milo Đukanović was negatively portrayed, being associated with anti-Serb sentiments, a negative attitude towards the Serbian Orthodox Church, criminal activities, corruption, and a long and undemocratic rule supported by the West. On the other hand, Andrija Mandić was portrayed positively as the “Serbian candidate.” Simultaneously, in the analyzed reports, Andrija Mandić was presented as a candidate emphasizing reconciliation within Montenegro.
Other candidates, including Jakov Milatović, were marginalized, despite public opinion surveys suggesting that Jakov Milatović had a greater potential to defeat Milo Đukanović in the second round, which eventually happened.
Supporting this narrative was the broadcast of a debate between Milo Đukanović and Andrija Mandić on TV B92 on March 16, 2023, just three days before the elections.
[1]https://www.paragraf.rs/propisi/zakon_o_elektronskim_medijima.html
[2]http://www.parlament.gov.rs/upload/archive/files/lat/pdf/predlozi_zakona/3060-15%20-lat.pdf
[3]https://rm.coe.int/168007b0d8
[4]The European Convention on Transfrontier Television entered into force in Montenegro on June 1, 2008, and in Serbia on January 1, 2010.
[5]Video-sharing platforms are online platforms where users can upload and share their video clips. These platforms include websites and social media platforms where users can post and distribute their videos.
[6]https://aemcg.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Istrazivanje-o-stavovima-i-percepciji-gradana-CG-o-televiziji-mart-2022.pdf
[7]Direct representation refers to when an actor speaks about themselves, while indirect representation refers to when someone else talks about the actor who is the subject of media coverage monitoring.
[8]The observed time periods are in seconds
[9]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qex9KhVWDbY
[10] http://www.rem.rs/uploads/files/Podzakonska%20regulativa/ Pravilnik%20o%20zastiti%20ljudskih%20prava%20u%20oblasti%20pruzanja%20medijskih%20usluga.pdfv
[11]http://kodekssifara.minrzs.gov.rs/documents/Prirucnik_za_primenu_jedinstvenog_kodeksa_sifara_za_unosenje_i_sifriranje_podataka_u_evidencijama_u_oblasti_rada.pdf (page 19 and 20)
