Original article (in Montenegrin) was published on 26/05/2026; Author: Marko Vukajlović
The Council of the Agency for Audiovisual Media Services (AMU) has decided to restrict the retransmission of Informer TV for six months. One of the reasons cited was the broadcast of the controversial “documentary” “Referendum – The Story of an Illusory Freedom.”
The so-called documentary, produced by the Novi Sad-based Center for Social Stability, an organization close to Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic’s Serbian Progressive Party (SNS), contains numerous falsehoods and insults. Among the most notable claims is the assertion that: “While brave people from Cetinje were dying across the former Yugoslavia fighting for freedom, their families in Cetinje were protected by Italian soldiers, which is why the largest demographic explosion after World War II was recorded in Cetinje.” The film also discusses revisiting the will of Montenegro’s citizens, proposes forms of “institutional unification of territories,” and culminates with the graphic message: “We’re coming back for what’s ours!!!”
These excerpts alone illustrate the nature of the production.
After AMU imposed restrictions on Informer TV and launched proceedings against Montenegro-based broadcasters TV Adria and TV Prva, which had also aired the program, several media outlets supportive of such narratives reacted strongly.
The portal Borba published an article titled: (archived here)
“Continuation of DPS Practices: Informer TV Banned for Six Months in Montenegro Because They ‘Attack the State’; Proceedings Also Launched Against Adria and Prva Over the Documentary?!?”
The article discusses AMU’s decision and concludes:
“This effectively continues the practice of the Democratic Party of Socialists, under which only television programs from Serbia are banned, along with certain domestic media outlets that provide the other side of the referendum story, where a large portion of citizens still disputes the results and speaks of a historic referendum fraud. Numerous publications, such as the White Book and similar works, testify to this.”
Mixing Apples and Oranges
Borba’s article initially misrepresents two key facts. First, AMU did not ban Informer, TV Prva, or TV Adria. AMU’s official statement clearly states:
“Due to the continuous broadcasting of content that insults the dignity of the Montenegrin people, denies Montenegrin national identity, promotes hate speech and discrimination, and insults the dignity of Montenegro’s citizens and institutions, the Council of the Agency for Audiovisual Media Services (SAMU) has adopted a decision temporarily restricting the reception and retransmission of the entire Informer TV program, operated by Insajder Team d.o.o. from the Republic of Serbia. The measure is imposed for a period of six months due to a violation of Article 7, Paragraph 1 of the European Convention on Transfrontier Television, which requires programming to respect human dignity and the fundamental rights and freedoms of others and prohibits content that incites hatred, discrimination, or intolerance. The documentary film Referendum – The Story of an Illusory Freedom represents only one of the problematic pieces of content identified within a broader body of material broadcast by Informer TV and is not an isolated case.
At the same time, in accordance with the Law on Audiovisual Media Services and within its competencies, the Agency has initiated proceedings against broadcasters registered in Montenegro – TV Adria and TV Prva – for airing the documentary film Referendum – The Story of an Illusory Freedom, due to the presence of elements of hate speech, incitement of national intolerance and discrimination, as well as content that insults dignity and challenges the legitimacy of Montenegrins’ national identity and the country’s contemporary constitutional order.
Another important point is that the media outlets in question came under the scrutiny of the AMU because of what was described as hate speech, incitement of ethnic intolerance, violations of human dignity, and challenges to the legitimacy of the national identity of Montenegrins and the contemporary constitutional order of the state – not because they are bastions of professional journalism that provided an opportunity for the other side to present its version of events.
The AMU further stated that proceedings had already been initiated against Informer in February for “broadcasting content containing elements of hate speech, denial of national identity, and the glorification of convicted war criminals, which constitutes a violation of Article 7(1) of the European Convention on Transfrontier Television.”
However, judging by its actions, Informer appears largely unconcerned by such warnings.
Serbian Tabloids Have Been Sanctioned Before
This is not the first time Serbian media content has been restricted in Montenegro. Four years ago, the then-Agency for Electronic Media (AEM), now AMU, similarly imposed a six-month restriction on portions of Happy TV’s programming. Raskrinkavanje reported on that case as well. At the time, the broadcasts contained content that was widely regarded as obvious hate speech and the promotion of intolerance. Tabloids reacted similarly then, claiming censorship and the beginning of a “media blackout” in Montenegro. The reasons were essentially identical to those cited by AMU in the current case.
Two years before that, similar measures were imposed for the same reasons: the promotion of hatred and discrimination against people of Montenegrin nationality on Happy TV and Pink M.
For all of these reasons, Borba’s article receives the rating “Manipulation of Facts.”
The “Manipulation of Facts” rating is given to a media report that uses known and accurate facts but interprets them in a deceptive manner. These reports generally employ accurate information to draw incorrect conclusions or claims, leading media consumers to draw conclusions that differ from the actual meaning of the presented facts.
Edit: 27 May 2026, 17:20
Following a review of the article, the word “filth” was replaced with “falsehood.”
Edit: 3 June 2026
The portal Borba published a correction to its original article, clearly retracting its initial claims in accordance with professional journalistic standards. As a result, the article receives the rating “Contracted.” This rating is given in cases where the media outlet establishes that the content it has published falls under one of the above-described negative ratings and then proceeds to correct it in a clear and visible way, per the principles of publishing corrections.
