The same individuals at both the national and local levels are deciding on projects of local media that are deemed to be of public interest for the citizens of Serbia. Who these individuals are, and what qualifies them to bear the title of „media expert,“ has been revealed by an analysis of their biographies conducted by the Association of Local and Independent Media – Local Press. This analysis highlights a strong institutional and personal network among commission members, as well as the misuse of certain criteria when evaluating their academic work, research topics, and qualifications. There is a marked dominance of certain less active associations, along with evident connections to public offices, institutions, and media outlets. Such a commission structure has resulted, in the Ministry of Information and Telecommunications’ competitions, in a process of selection and decision-making that is insufficiently transparent—and highly predictable.
It is worth recalling that the Rulebook on Amendments and Supplements to the Rulebook on Co-Financing Projects Aimed at Achieving Public Interest in the Field of Public Information was adopted on December 26, 2024, without any consultation with relevant media and journalistic organizations. Its implementation began as early as January 1, 2025. This continues the well-established strategy of adopting key media laws and important documents either during holiday periods or right before public holidays.
An analysis of the candidates serving on the commissions responsible for selecting projects of public interest at the Ministry of Information and Telecommunications revealed that the highest representation, in terms of associations, came from the Journalists’ Association of Vojvodina (5 members), PROUNS (5 members), ComNet (3 members), and the Radio and Television Associations of Serbia (4members). Many commission members stated in their applications that they simultaneously hold membership in multiple associations. The absolute record-holder is a commission member who received a score of over 90 points in the evaluation process and listed membership in no fewer than five media and journalistic associations. Such overlapping membership creates space for potential conflicts of interest or prearranged relationships and agreements.
Given the fact that a large number of so-called independent media experts are also members of the aforementioned associations, it becomes clear that the commissions in 2025 function as formal mechanisms serving personal, institutional, and political interests.
What are the academic or professional works of the media experts?
Particularly interesting are the topics of the candidates’ papers as indicated in their applications, and their relevance in assessing whether an individual qualifies as a media expert.
Examples of topics submitted include areas such as security, agriculture, beekeeping, ecology, agrarian marketing, cultural influences, and tourism. One such example is the topic “The Danube Through the Eyes of Journalists,” organized by the Bratislava Tourist Organization, which was submitted as a published work in the field of public information and media in professional and academic publications. Other submissions include film reviews of works by Andrei Tarkovsky, a paper on “The Revolutionary Nature of Cinematic Photography in the Work of Orson Welles and Gregg Toland in Citizen Kane,” as well as “Improving Cooperation Between Beekeepers and the Media,” “Democratic Civilian Control of the Military from the Perspective of State Institutions,” “Development of Democratic Civil Control During the Transition Period in Certain Neighbouring Countries,” “Application of Modern Software Solutions for Managing Chemical Accidents Caused by the Transport of Hazardous Materials,” and “Activity Report of the Beekeepers’ Association.” Management is also well-represented—but in agriculture—featuring topics such as “Marketing and Communications as a Resource in Agrarian Production,” “Economic Diplomacy and Agrarian Management in the Republic of Serbia,” and “The Importance of Education for Primary Agricultural Producers.” When it comes to digitalization and digital marketing, one could say—judging by the topics submitted—we are true experts and global leaders. The fact that the actual implementation of digital tools in local media(which are supposed to be the main focus of these topics) remains at a very low level is a clear example of the disconnect between theory and practice in this region.
All of the aforementioned papers that include media-related components were produced by groups consisting of several media experts and share one common characteristic: they were published in collections of papers and publications issued by the Journalists Association of Vojvodina—an organization whose members are the most represented in the commissions. Although these collections are most frequently cited as sources of verification, another prominent source stands out: the Center for Culture, Education, and Media “Akademac” based in Sremski Karlovci, which is also an organizer of international conferences (held in Croatia, North Macedonia, Montenegro, and Bulgaria). What these projects have in common is that they were financed by the Provincial Secretariat for Culture, Public Information, and Relations with Religious Communities. In addition to domestic sources, it was also noted that some of our media experts submitted works published in Moscow, while only one candidate cited a publication from Romania.
A current topic at this moment is the paper titled “The Influence of Youth on Strengthening Culture Through Media Content and Enhancing Media Credibility Among Young People in Serbia and the Balkans” authored by a commission member affiliated with the Public Broadcaster- Radio Television of Vojvodina.

According to the Ministry of Information, the leading media experts are employed in public broadcasting services

A large number of commission members are currently employed or have previously worked at the public broadcasters—Radio Television of Serbia (RTS) and Radio Television of Vojvodina (RTV).
Thus, we are witnessing an absurd situation: at a time when there is a growing number of serious complaints regarding the professional conduct of these two public services, their personnel are, according to the Ministry of Information and Telecommunications (MIT), regarded as leading media experts. The shortcomings of the evaluation process are further evidenced by the case of a commission member—an employee of a public broadcaster—who was awarded 12 points for claiming participation in several commissions, without specifying which ones, despite this being a requirement for other candidates. That the evaluation process may have been “confused” or selectively applied is further illustrated by a commission member who failed to state in their application whether their nomination came from an association or if they were applying as an independent candidate. Incidentally, this candidate listed only one authored project, raising a legitimate question: what exactly qualified them to serve as a media expert evaluating project proposals?
In addition to the dominant presence of personnel from RTS and RTV, the commissions also included candidates who previously held public or political office. One of the commission members, for example, was formerly the deputy mayor of a municipality; others included individuals who had been employed in municipal governments, an army officer, and a retired senior official from the Presidential Defense Cabinet. Also among the selected media experts was a candidate listed as a trader by profession, currently described as an „acting editor“ at a media outlet that is not registered in the official Media Register. This year, the commissions under the Ministry of Information and Telecommunications also included two candidates from the Republic of Srpska.
Local authorities are copying…
The scoring system for media experts, as prescribed in the amended Rulebook on Co-Financing Projects Aimed at Achieving the Public Interest in the Field of Public Information (2025), has effectively enabled a copy-paste model for commissions at the local level and for local budgets. In practical terms, this means that independent local media cannot expect a different outcome in the allocation of budgetary funds than at the national level, since the composition of the commissions evaluating the projects is identical to those at the republic level. This has resulted in a mere 3.82% of the total funds allocated by the Ministry of Information and Telecommunications of the Republic of Serbia being awarded to members of the Local Pres association, which includes 53 independent local media outlets.
In other words, the 53 local media outlets that are members of the Lokal Pres Association received a total of 16,368,000 RSD in the 2025 competitions organized by the Ministry of Information and Telecommunications of the Republic of Serbia—less than the combined amount awarded to just two television stations: Radio Television Kruševac and Zona Plus Television from Niš.
Should we mention that Radio Television Kruševac is owned by Radoica Milosavljević from Kruševac, who, during the privatization of local media, acquired a large number of local outlets?
In this year’s competitions held by the Ministry of Information and Telecommunications, this station was awarded as much as 9,700,000 RSD (over82,000 EUR) across five competitions. Closely following is TV Zona Plus, owned by another resident of Kruševac, Nikola Gašić, the son of the current Minister of Defense, Bratislav Gašić, which received 7,750,000 RSD (over 66,000 EUR).VTV Subotica, meanwhile, received 8,000,000 RSD (over 68,000 EUR) from just two national-level competitions. Its owner and legal representative is Vladan Stefanović, who was also selected as a member of one of the commissions at the Ministry of Information and Telecommunications of the Republic of Serbia—as was his daughter, Dragana Stefanović.
Strong institutional and personal interconnectedness among commission members isa defining feature of the selection committees in 2025.