Media Landscape in Montenegro

Since regaining independence in 2006, Montenegro has undergone a process of political reconciliation. It is against this background that one can assess media freedom in Montenegro. A small country with a dynamic political landscape caught in a perpetual election cycle, its media ecosystem suffers from evident media polarisation. The media outlets which had emerged since the early 2000s had to navigate through persistent political interference. Understanding Montenegro’s media ecosystem necessitates a thorough examination of three critical pillars: media capture, legal threats, and the safety of journalists. 

Media capture

Political and economic elites exert control over media outlets  by influencing the content production to serve their interests. Such interference results in several instances of  captured media.  In Montenegro, media capture manifests in a number of mechanisms, impacting journalistic independence and curbing pluralism. Firstly, the concentration of media ownership in the hands of 8 companies undermines plurality and contributes to media capture in Montenegro by paving the path to easier establishment of political control on main media channels. Consequently, news coverage often reflects the political and economic agendas of media owners, affecting media outlets’ editorial independence and media pluralism. Secondly, another problem arises from government funding. In such a small market, the media in Montenegro heavily rely on financial aid , funding allocation which political entities use to exert pressure on media professionals. Editorial independence of the public service broadcaster RTCG (Radio Televizija Crne Gore) has been in a dire state during the transition decades encompassing a period from early 1990s until the change following the 2020 elections. It was considered a mouthpiece of the ruling DPS (Democratic Party of Socialists), with its tight grip on the management and funding. One positive step regarding this problem is the 2020 Law on Media drafted by the new majority after the August 30 elections, in which Chapter 3 deals with the “Transparency of Media Financing From Public Funds”, therefore making sure that financial pressures cannot be used to influence editorial independence.

Cross-media ownership concentration, as measured by the Media Ownership Monitor , represents a serious issue. The concentration is considered high-risk if the top 8 major owners have more than 70% of market share across different media outlets. The percentage in Montenegro reaches 89,5%, showing overly high concentration. The Agency for Electronic Media, the responsible regulatory  authority, has addressed this issue by acknowledging illegal media concentration and laying out a mechanism that, if implemented, would help reduce market concentration by limiting capital or number of licences. Despite legal frameworks in place aimed at ensuring transparency, practical enforcement remains weak, with numerous loopholes exploited by media moguls connected to politics.

Foreign interference is particularly concerning. The fact that three out of four national broadcasters are owned by Serbian owners closely affiliated with Vučić testifies to an increased risk of political influence on media content production and distribution. As media capture is evident in the neighbouring country, spill-over is an unfortunate consequence of the lack of language barriers. Platforms like the online media outlet IN4S and politically affiliated intellectuals use academic and religious channels to promote pro-Serbian narratives. Such public discourse  aims to reshape public perceptions and influence political processes. The overall impact of Serbian media influence in Montenegro is profound, affecting not only the media landscape but also the broader socio-political environment. The interplay of media ownership, political manipulation, and religious influence (through Serbian Orthodox Church) plays a critical role in (re)shaping public opinion in Montenegro.

Legal threats

Journalists face multiple legal challenges, among which SLAPPs (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) are most prominent. Courts in Montenegro can only recognize SLAPPs as civil cases. The lack of anti-SLAPP mechanisms has been enabling abusive lawsuits against the media initiated by public officials. In many of such cases, those  in power managed to obtain high compensations for  lawsuits  in which an infringement or misdemeanour was recognized. According to the Trade Union of Media of Montenegro, 210 lawsuits for the infringement of honour and reputation were issued against journalists and media outlets between 2011 and 2020 . 

Further, the journalistic profession is hindered by an inconsistent application of freedom of information laws. Government bodies and public institutions often fail to provide timely and comprehensive responses to information requests. Although the regulatory framework adheres to EU standards, the implementation lacks effectiveness. 

Finally, another issue of concern is the protection of journalistic sources is also problematic. One can argue that Article 30 of the 2020 Media Law, which obliges journalists to disclose their sources of information at the request of the state prosecutor if deemed necessary, represents a threat to the protection of journalists' sources. International organisations such as Reporters without Borders urged that mandatory source reveal is not a good solution. The 2024 version of the law revises this aspect, but still falls short of the 2002 Media Law , when under no condition was it mandatory for a journalist  to disclose their sources. 

Despite the fact that the newest Media Law has been adopted in June 2024 as part of the IBAR (Interim Benchmark Assessment Report) package of laws, which aim to better the country’s jurisprudence and rule of law and are seen as a step forward in Montenegro’s EU bid, its upholding is proving to be questionable. The latest example of this is the Pobjeda situation , where the editor-in-chief was fired by the new Board of Directors, in response to a strike of around 20 journalists of editorial staff. Article 42 of the IBAR law states that journalists themselves have a say when it comes to  appointing or removing their editor-in-chief. As the July strike unfolded, the Pobjeda case turned to be an interesting example for assessing if the legal improvements that have been made since 2020 are only cosmetic and aimed at pleasing international partners, or if they will actually be enforced.

Safety of Journalists

Various forms of threats undermine the safety of journalists, including physical violence, harassment, and intimidation, all of which affect press and media freedom. In the last 10 years, 20 alerts describing physical attacks have been registered by the Media Freedom Rapid Response on its Mapping Media Freedom platform. Physical attacks, including assaults and threats, have targeted journalists in Montenegro, often linked to their reporting on sensitive topics such as corruption, organised crime, and political scandals. High-profile cases like the murder of Duško Jovanović and the attacks on Olivera Lakić remain unresolved, pointing to impunity as a serious problem. The former, being the most infamous attack, has become a symbol of impunity, as for 20 years no progress has been made. Initially, governments from the post-2020 period showed political will to solve the case by promising that during their term culprits would be brought to justice. The political climate characterising pre-2020 governments did not allow for positive developments in the investigation, mainly because the ruling political structures had ties with prosecutors that were instructed not to proceed with thorough investigations. During her recent visit , OSCE Representative for Freedom of The Media Teresa Ribeiro pointed out to President Jakov Milatović that resolving these cases remains necessary for Montenegro.

Despite the many challenges posed to the journalistic profession in Montenegro, policymakers have been showing a certain degree of political willingness to tackle these problems. Currently, 3 new laws concerning media are under discussion in the national parliament of Montenegro. Following the change in ruling majority in August 2020, the media community called for enhancements of media legislation. As a result, the Government began a comprehensive media reform process. The outcome of this could position Montenegro in a good place to catch up to European standards and develop a more balanced media landscape, with a healthy and safe environment for journalists to work in.