Decision upon worried parent vs M portal 03.11.2025

The Commission concludes that the text did not respect the principle of "the other side", since the views and answers of the relevant representatives were not included, which would contribute to a better understanding and clarification of the alleged security failures, which is crucial for providing a complete and balanced report. In this way, there was a violation of principle I of the Code of Journalists, guideline 1.2 Accuracy.

The Commission accepted the part of the statement of the responsible editor of the M portal that they were interested in protecting the minor from further discrimination, and that is why they did not publish the names of the school director and the name of the school. The Commission appreciates the absolute protection of the girl's identity. However, the Commission, on the other hand, did not accept the opinion of the editors that they therefore decided "to skip hearing them", because the mandatory journalistic rule to hear the other side was not followed.

Explanation

On October 16, 2025, the Media Council for Self-Regulation received a complaint from a reader, signed as "concerned parent", expressing concern about the manner in which the M portal reported on a case of peer violence. The complainant points out that the story of the girl's mother shows a serious problem of the lack of institutional reaction, but that due to the absence of the positions of the authorities, it is difficult to conclude whether the system really did not react or whether it is a different perception of the parents.

The complaint stated that the story of peer violence, told from the point of view of the girl's mother, left a strong impression, especially due to the described difficulties of parents to get support from the system. The complainant believes that the statement of the institutions was missing in the text:

"What we would like to see in the text is that the Ministry and the director of the school had to say to the journalist's questions. This would help us understand whether the institutions react the same to journalists as they do to parents who, as seen in the text, sometimes are ignored or refered between the institutions and individuals. Perhaps the journalists' questions would help," the complaint states.

The reader especially points out that the inclusion of the other party would contribute to a higher degree of trust and a clearer picture of whether the system is functioning, and that is why he requests that the Commission inform M Portal of the obligation to contact the authorities.

In the editorial statement, signed by the editor-in-chief, Danica Nikolić, it is stated that the priority was the protection of the minor girl and her family. They point out that the parents are exposed to discrimination and administrative ignoring, and that for these reasons the media decided not to mention the name of the principal, the name of the school, or other information that could lead to revealing the victim's identity. "That is the only reason why we skipped hearing the other side this time", it was written in the statement.

They further state that they are encouraged by the fact that, after the publication of the text, the attitude of the students towards the girl began to change for the better, as well as the representatives of the institutions became more accessible to the parents. They add that the M portal is working on researching several cases of violence and that they will publish the answers of the authorities in a separate text if they receive them.

The Commission, however, states that the protection of the identity of minors, although extremely important, is not in conflict or incompatible with the obligation of journalists to contact the competent institutions. The Commission indicates that the M portal could send questions to the Ministry, directorate, school or pedagogical-psychological service without specifying the name of the child, parents, class, department or other data that would lead to identification. Institutions have an obligation to provide general, framework or system information even when the specific case cannot be commented on due to privacy protection.

The Commission emphasizes that professional and responsible journalism is obliged to check the statements of the interlocutors, especially in topics concerning children and potential failures in institutional response. By omitting to check with the other party - even in the form of an attempt to get in touch - the standard of accuracy and completeness is violated, as readers are deprived of context and possible explanations from the competent authorities.

Also, the Commission notes that in the text parents complain about administrative inefficiency, lack of cooperation and "closed system". It is precisely in such situations that the responses of the institutions, even if they are negative, rejected or formal, represent an important element of public interest. Their inclusion would provide readers with a more complete insight into whether there is an objective problem or misunderstanding between parents and the school/ministry.

The Commission reminds that cases of peer violence are among the most sensitive topics in media reporting, as they require the protection of the identity of minors, the accuracy and verifiability of information, the involvement of all relevant actors, the avoidance of dramatization and disturbing the public, but also the insistence on the responsibility of institutions.

The Commission believes that in this type of topic, the other side does not only serve the form, but is an integral part of the professional standard that allows the public to understand whether the institutions are functioning, whether they have child protection mechanisms and whether they react in a timely manner.

The Commission especially points out that in the practice of self-regulation, it has been emphasized several times that the protection of minors does not absolve the media from the obligation to check the allegations of the parents and to contact the competent institutions. On the contrary, professional conduct requires a balance - neither of the two standards (identity protection and information verification) must be sacrificed for the sake of the other.

In this particular case, the Commission believes that the editorial team had the opportunity to request the institution's comment without jeopardizing the girl's privacy, and that the omission of that step led to a one-sided presentation of the facts. The Commission emphasizes that the public interest in such cases is extremely high, since it concerns the protection of children, the functioning of the school system and the reaction of the competent authorities. Precisely for this reason, the journalistic obligation also includes a critical examination of the responsibility of institutions. In order for the public to be able to assess the seriousness of the problem, it is necessary to hear the other side - their position, possible explanations, or even refusal to comment. None of these options would violate the identity of the minor, but would significantly improve the integrity and quality of reporting. In this way, there was a violation of principle I of the Code of Journalists, guideline 1.2 Accuracy:

(a) Before publishing report, the journalist should be sure that all appropriate measures have been taken to verify its accuracy.

Guidelines for the interpretation and application of the basic principles of the Code of Ethics.

Journalists must strive to provide comprehensive reports on events and must not keep quiet over or suppress essential information.

Pursuant to the Article 21 of the Statute of the Media Council for Self-Regulation, the Statement of this decision should be published on the M portal.

Comission for monitoring and complaints

Aneta Spaić
Sonja Drobac
Danilo Burzan
Branko Vojičić
Ranko Vujović