Original article (in Montenegrin) was published on 24/2/2025; Author: Marko Vukajlović
A support rally for student demands in Serbia was held in Prijepolje (archived: here), but regional and domestic media attempted to divert the focus of the event.
News portals such as Novosti, Alo and B92 published articles under the headline: (archived: 1, 2, 3)
DEMANDS FOR THE SECESSION FROM SERBIA: Sandzak flag at a student protest in Prijepolje.
A similar report was published by the Borba portal: (archived: here)
Sandzak flag at a student protest in Prijepolje
Subsequently, claims about the alleged Sandzak flag and supposed “secession from Serbia” spread further on Facebook. (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9) (archived: 1, 2, 3).
The mentioned articles state that the photograph was taken by journalists from Radar magazine, who posted it on Instagram without mentioning the Sandzak flag: (archived: here)
A Bosniak and an Orthodox Christian – united for justice. Love between two faiths.
Therefore, the students did not mention Sandzak, secession from Serbia, or carry the Sandzak flag, but rather the Bosniak national flag.
The topic of Sandzak’s secession was introduced by the media outlets that published this photograph, stating:
“The Sandzak flag has been present at many public events in Serbia and Montenegro for a long time, and there are individuals on social media who advocate for the idea of an independent Sandzak separate from Serbia and Montenegro.”
“The clear message conveyed by this act is that those who displayed the flag are demanding secession from Serbia,” Novosti wrote.
That the flag in question is the Bosniak national flag is evident from the website of the Bosniak National Council in Serbia, where it is stated(archived: here):
“The national flag of the Bosniaks is white, with a coat of arms in the center. The standard dimensions of the flag are 80 x 130 cm, while the dimensions of the coat of arms on the flag are 30.7 x 40 cm.”
The national symbols of Sandzak’s Bosniaks were established by the Decision of the Bosniak National Council on National Symbols on May 11, 2004, and were confirmed by the Decision of the Council of the Republic of Serbia for National Minorities on December 23, 2005 (Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, No. 23/06).
This flag has also been seen (archived: 1, 2) in Montenegro, especially on May 11 – the Day of the Bosniak National Flag.
Last year, the Bosniak Council in Montenegro issued a statement on this matter: (archived: here)
“The National Bosniak Flag is a symbol of all members of this people in our country, regardless of their political affiliation, status, or social position. The public use of the Bosniak flag and symbols, as well as those of other national communities, is guaranteed by the Constitution (Article 79) and precisely defined by the Law on the Selection, Use, and Public Display of National Symbols, which clearly states that national insignia are used during political, scientific, cultural-artistic, and sports gatherings organized by councils, associations, and political parties.
The flag is a national symbol used by all Bosniaks, both in the Sandzak region and in all other cities across Montenegro where the Bosniak people have lived for centuries as an indigenous population, on their ancestral lands.”
On the occasion of the Bosniak National Flag Day, the Bosniak Party had previously issued a statement: (archived: here)
“We are proud of the fact that the once-contested Bosniak national flag today represents an indispensable and important ornament and symbol on all national and state institutions in cities where members of the Bosniak people live.”
Although no one at the protests currently taking place in Serbia has mentioned the secession of Sandzak, this idea has existed within political parties and public discourse since the 1990s. Sandzak is a region spanning Montenegro and Serbia, consisting of six municipalities, whose autonomy—though not outright independence—was sought by certain political parties from the town of Novi Pazar.
Thus, the media attempted to create a spin and divert the discussion from the protests to the issue of the flag. From a photograph that clearly called for unity and love, an entirely opposite narrative was constructed, one that is certainly not grounded in facts.
Therefore, the controversial claims made by the media and on Facebook are classified as disinformation.
The “Disinformation” rating is given to media reports that contain a “mix” of facts and inaccurate or partially true content. In such cases, media outlets may not necessarily be aware of the inaccurate information published alongside accurate details. Additionally, this rating will also apply to reports with false attributions or headlines that do not accurately reflect the content in terms of factual correctness.
Edit: 25. 2. 2025
The Borba portal published a correction in its original article, using the ethical standard of professional behavior of journalists in a transparent manner, thus denying the initial allegations, which is why we rate their contribution as “Corrected.” 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.
The Alo portal published a correction in its original article, using the ethical standard of professional behavior of journalists in a transparent manner, thus denying the initial allegations, which is why we rate their contribution as “Corrected.” 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.
