Serbian Authorities Target Whistleblower in Media Manipulation Scandal

Serbian Prosecutors Target Independent Media Outlet in Controversial Recording Case

In a move that has ignited concerns over press freedom in Serbia, prosecutors have ordered the independent investigative outlet KRIK to surrender an audio recording that exposed apparent collusion between media executives to undermine one of the country’s few remaining independent broadcasters.

The recording, published as part of a joint investigation by KRIK and the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP), captured a conversation between Vladimir Lučić, head of state-controlled Telekom Srbija, and Stan Miller, CEO of United Group, a telecommunications conglomerate owned by British private equity firm BC Partners.

During their discussion, the executives allegedly strategized about restructuring United Group’s media operations in Serbia, particularly its media division United Media, which operates N1 TV—one of the country’s last independent television networks known for critical coverage of President Aleksandar Vučić’s government.

“I cannot fire Aleksandra today, as we discussed, okay? I need to make that company very small in Serbia, if you understand what I mean, and separate it,” Miller is heard saying in the recording, referring to Aleksandra Subotić, United Media’s long-serving CEO.

Neither executive has disputed the recording’s authenticity, which was released in late September and immediately raised alarm throughout Serbia’s vulnerable media community. Under Lučić’s leadership, Telekom Srbija has emerged as a powerful instrument of political influence, aggressively expanding by acquiring regional media companies and securing exclusive broadcasting rights in deals reportedly exceeding €650 million ($752 million).

Critics note that most outlets acquired or funded by Telekom Srbija have become vehicles for pro-government messaging while marginalizing critical voices. N1 TV and its sister station Nova S have remained exceptions in an otherwise tightly controlled media landscape, making them frequent targets of political pressure.

Rather than investigating the concerning content of the conversation, Serbia’s Higher Public Prosecutor’s Office in Belgrade quickly pivoted to identifying the source of the leak. On October 2, Prosecutor Aleksandar Milošević formally requested that KRIK hand over “the original or best available copy” of the recording or even the device on which it was made, citing “urgency” in verifying its authenticity.

KRIK’s editor-in-chief Stevan Dojčinović criticized the unusual speed and nature of the request, noting the recording was already publicly available on YouTube. “Instead of examining whether there were elements of criminal offense in discussions about removing the head of a Serbian media company and pressuring the press, prosecutors want to identify the source of the recording,” Dojčinović said.

He affirmed that KRIK would not compromise the confidentiality of journalistic sources. “It’s clear that the goal is to uncover and punish the whistleblower rather than to investigate possible abuses of power. Unfortunately, this isn’t surprising in Serbia, where the prosecutor’s office often acts in the interest of President Vučić.”

The case highlights Serbia’s deteriorating media freedom under Vučić’s Serbian Progressive Party (SNS), which has consolidated control over the country’s information landscape through economic pressure, strategic acquisitions, and regulatory interference over the past decade.

Telekom Srbija has been instrumental in this process, transforming from a standard telecommunications provider into what critics describe as a political tool that now dominates the Serbian media market. Independent outlets like N1 TV have been systematically marginalized—often denied access to government events, excluded from public advertising, and vilified by pro-government media.

The timing of the prosecutors’ demand coincided with a criminal complaint filed by Vladica Tintor, the new director of United Group’s Serbian branch and former head of the country’s telecommunications regulatory authority. This coordination has raised further questions about potential political influence over the investigation.

Legal experts emphasize that Serbian law specifically protects journalists from revealing their sources. “The media cannot be compelled to hand over material that would expose a whistleblower,” said Belgrade-based lawyer Miloš Jovanović. “This protection is fundamental to investigative reporting and freedom of information.”

Despite these protections, KRIK and other independent outlets have faced persistent harassment, surveillance, and politically motivated legal actions. Many of KRIK’s journalists have been targets of smear campaigns in tabloids affiliated with the ruling party, while Dojčinović has received numerous threats.

Media freedom advocates fear the prosecutor’s actions could establish a dangerous precedent as Serbia approaches parliamentary elections in 2026. If authorities succeed in forcing KRIK to surrender the recording or identify its source, it would send a chilling message to journalists and whistleblowers throughout the country.

“Whistleblowers are the backbone of investigative journalism. Targeting them not only silences the source but intimidates the entire press corps,” Reporters Without Borders stated in condemning the prosecutors’ move.

KRIK remains defiant as the case unfolds, underscoring the increasingly precarious state of Serbia’s democratic institutions and the blurring line between political power and legal authority.