Interview by: Marijana Camović Veličković
Podgorica, 10.02. 2026 – Political influence on Montenegro’s public broadcaster is visible and multi-layered, and manifests itself subtly through personnel decisions, editorial priorities, selection of topics — or what is not treated as a topic — choice of interviewees, as well as the tone of reporting – said media expert and University of Montenegro professor Dr Vuk Vuković.
In an interview for Safejournalists.net, commenting on the situation in Montenegrin media financed by public funds, especially Radio and Television of Montenegro (RTCG), he said that it is particularly problematic that RTCG is headed by a person whose appointment has been challenged in court multiple times. This further delegitimizes the management structure and opens space for political bargaining. He also noted that local public broadcasters remain under strong influence of their founders, which prevents them from operating in the public interest.
– Do you believe that the independence of the public service, as guaranteed by law, has been achieved, and why?
Formally speaking, the Law establishes a relatively solid framework for institutional, editorial, and financial independence of the public service. However, practice negates the possibilities provided by the Law. As long as the issue of the illegal appointment of the acting Director General is not resolved, we cannot speak of independence, and therefore not of the principles of public service broadcasting. Systematic derogation of the Law through open disregard of court decisions indicates the institution’s inability to resist political pressure at key decision-making points — primarily in the appointment of the Director General, and consequently in the editorial policy of the news program. At these levels, independence is seriously compromised.
– How do you assess the programming of the public service media, and do you believe the level of public funding is justified in terms of value for money?
The answer lies in a methodological illusion that RTCG occasionally presents, related to allegedly significant viewership. Although we are in 2026, management still tries to present “ratings” rather than “trust” as the main measure of quality. This tells us how management views RTCG — incorrectly, outdatedly, and populistically.
In that sense, it is difficult to justify the amount of public funds allocated to RTCG. The problem is not only the size of the budget, but how it is used. RTCG’s programming is uneven, conceptually insufficiently defined, and largely below the production, content, and social standards that a public service broadcaster should meet. This is particularly true for news, documentary, and educational/scientific content, where form dominates over substance, and where investigative depth and professional courage are rarely present.
– The public service is criticized not only for being illegally managed, but also for political influence and political bargaining. Do you see this influence, and in which segments?
Political influence is visible and multi-layered. It does not manifest only through open censorship or lack of pluralism, but more subtly — through personnel decisions, editorial priorities, selection of topics (and what shouldn’t be topics), choice of interviewees, and the tone of reporting. The fact that RTCG is led by a person whose appointment has been repeatedly challenged in court is particularly problematic, as it further delegitimizes the management structure and opens space for political bargaining. When you normalize the breach of the law at the top, you corrode the entire institution
– The institution of the ombudsman was established by the RTCG Law in 2020. Is its impact visible, and has there been any positive progress in self-regulation?
The ombudsman institution is completely invisible — or more precisely, in practice it has a limited and marginal impact. Moreover, through events and reactions in 2025, the institution has been further compromised. We cannot speak of any significant positive progress in RTCG’s self-regulation, because the ombudsman has not been integrated as a substantive corrective to editorial and professional practice, but rather as a formal addition without real power. From the ombudsman’s work so far, it is easy to conclude that the basic principle — integrity — seems to be lacking.
– Three active members of the RTCG Council have been convicted at first instance for abuse of office but still hold their positions. How do you comment on this?
This is a serious institutional and ethical problem. Institutionally, it directly undermines the credibility of the Council as a body meant to protect the public interest, legality, and professional standards. On a personal level, it raises the issue of moral criteria — or rather, the lack of them.
– How do you comment on the avoidance of applying the Law on Audiovisual Media Services and the RTCG Law during the selection of Council members?
It is clear that this was an ad hoc strategy by political structures dissatisfied with certain personnel solutions. The period of selective or avoided application of these laws shows that the problem is not in “unclear laws,” but in the political will to respect them. This has further undermined trust in the regulatory system and emptied the idea of depoliticized governance of independent institutions of its meaning.
– Excluding the illegal Council appointments, how do you assess the implementation of the 2024 media laws and their effects, especially regarding The Agency for Audiovisual Media Services (AMU) and the appointment of the RTCG Director General?
Even excluding those illegalities, implementation of the media laws has produced limited and partial effects. The work of AMU can generally be praised, especially in terms of administrative and procedural improvements, but there is still a lack of substantive strengthening of regulatory autonomy and consistency. There is also a lack of methodologically serious, in-depth studies that AMU has the capacity to conduct, but instead remains at a surface level. Regarding RTCG, repeated illegal appointments of the Director General clearly show that legal changes alone are not sufficient without institutional accountability and respect for court practice.
– How do you assess local public broadcasters and their fulfillment of their public role? What should be changed?
Local public broadcasters are RTCG in miniature. Everything we see at the national public broadcaster is visible, to a greater or lesser extent, at the local level.
Although the Law on Law on Audiovisual Media Services (AVMS) partially improved their financing security, key problems remain: weak professional production, limited human resources, pronounced clientelism, and self-censorship. In such conditions, local broadcasters rarely fulfill their public role — to inform citizens in the public interest, oversee local authorities, and nurture pluralism. I emphasize: to oversee local authorities.
Unfortunately, there is still a lack of awareness that local public broadcasters are not owned by municipalities, but by the public, and that they should not serve as PR tools for local governments, but rather maintain a critical approach. Without this, they remain an extension of local administrations, not a service to citizens.