Euronews Serbia: a structural advantage for government-aligned perspectives

The central finding of CRTA's July 2026 analysis of Euronews Serbia's reporting is that government-aligned perspectives enjoy a structural advantage across several dimensions of editorial output. Within the monitored sample, government actors receive substantially more political airtime in central news, while government representatives and pro-government interlocutors appear considerably more often across the channel's broader programming. They are also represented by a larger pool of voices and have greater opportunities to define political problems, explain their causes, and present solutions. Although relevant and sometimes critical questions are present, claims supporting government-aligned frames are not consistently followed by sustained questioning, requests for evidence, additional context, or independent verification. The result is not the complete exclusion of critical voices, but an unequal capacity of different political perspectives to shape the political reality presented to the audience.



These findings should be understood within the broader context of Serbia's media landscape. Euronews Serbia was launched into a media landscape already dominated by pro-government outlets across national, cable, and local television, at a time when political independence in Serbian media was already assessed as a high-risk area amid broader democratic backsliding. The government representatives presented the channel's arrival as a sign of Serbia's commitment to EU integration and media pluralism, yet its launch was controversial from the outset: the franchise was acquired by Telekom Serbia, the majority state-owned telecom operator, at a time when state ownership of media was explicitly prohibited by law - an arrangement only retroactively legalized through 2023 media law amendments.

Even with one of the lowest shares in the television market of Serbia at only 0.07%, Euronews Serbia's programming appears indistinguishable from the rest of the mainstream media landscape.

The findings of CRTA's analysis draw on three distinct strands (detailed in full under the Methodology section): standard quantitative media monitoring Standard quantitative media monitoring - tracking the central news programme measuring political airtime, tone (positive/neutral/negative) and speaking role (active/passive) across 9,730 seconds of political airtime, plus classification of 142 guest appearances across four informative shows by political affiliation (government/opposition) or public orientation (pro-government/government-critical/neutral), with 79 appearances further coded by topic within the socio-political thematic category. Including separate tracking of President Vučić's live addresses on Euronews Serbia from 2024 to 2026. , qualitative analysis of programme announcements Qualitative analysis of programme announcements - examining two sets of material: how the central news headlines ("heads") and YouTube guest-programme promos select, prioritise and frame topics before they are developed on air. , and in-depth qualitative analysis of programme content and application of journalistic standards In-depth qualitative analysis of programme content and application of journalistic standards - coding a purposive, maximum-variation sample of 18 programmes/segments for recurring frames (victimisation, legitimisation, delegitimisation of domestic and other actors, unsupported claims, attribution of unsubstantiated motives) and for journalistic conduct (alternative perspectives, critical questions, follow-ups, requests for evidence). .

Standard quantitative media monitoring findings: In Euronews Serbia's central news programme, the ruling majority received 87% of the total airtime dedicated to political actors compared to only 13%, which the opposition received - this gap is even starker when taking into account the fact that the opposition rarely had a chance to directly address their position or that ¼ of the ruling majority coverage was positive.

In other shows of the Euronews Serbia programme, significant disproportion is also present. Officials and pro-government interlocutors accounted for 52%, compared with 14% for opposition representatives and government-critical interlocutors. Neutral interlocutors accounted for the remaining 34%.

Qualitative analysis of programme announcements: The analysis of headlines and programme announcements identifies recurring frames aligned with government perspectives on domestic and foreign policy, while the opposition appears less frequently as a source of policies or alternative solutions.

In-depth qualitative analysis of programme content and application of journalistic standards: The qualitative analysis identifies recurring patterns of victimisation or vulnerability and legitimisation of government or state policy, alongside the delegitimisation of domestic opposition and critical actors in a smaller group of programmes. Journalistic scrutiny only partly offsets these patterns. Relevant and sometimes critical questions are present, but responses are frequently not followed by sustained questioning, requests for evidence, additional context, or independent verification.

Euronews Serbia, a cable news channel, currently available on all cable providers, began broadcasting in April 2021. Its arrival coincided with a serious decline in Serbian democracy V-Dem placed Serbia among the countries with the largest democratic backsliding of the past decade (V-Dem Institute (2021), "Democracy Report 2021: Autocratisation Turns Viral"). , marked by the vanishing of political and media pluralism as the ruling elite concentrated its grip on airtime and the broader media landscape through which anti-EU narratives gained ground in public discourse.

By 2026, political independence in Serbian media emerged as the most endangered dimension among several areas in media pluralism monitoring, receiving a high-risk score.

Overall, Serbia has a highly fragmented television market, with more than 300 channels, although the exact number cannot currently be determined. The Regulatory Authority for Electronic Media (REM) issued its last broadcasting licence in late October 2024, and some television channels have since begun broadcasting without a licence. Alongside the national public service broadcaster RTS and the regional public service broadcaster RT Vojvodina, four commercial television channels have national coverage - TV Pink, TV Prva, TV Happy, and TV B92 - all of which, together with the public service broadcasters, display a predominantly pro-government editorial orientation CRTA Media Monitoring of Political Pluralism 2017-2026. .

The cable television landscape is more diverse in format, but not necessarily in political orientation. Excluding Euronews, at least seven cable channels (TV N1, Tanjug TV, TV Vesti, Insajder TV, Newsmax Balkans, Bloomberg Adria, and RT Balkan) broadcast predominantly news and current affairs content; among them, TV N1 and Insajder TV are critical of the government, while the others display a predominantly pro-government orientation CRTA Media Monitoring of Political Pluralism; CRTA Media Monitoring of President Aleksandar Vučić's public speeches, press conferences and their coverage. . At least five additional cable channels combine news and entertainment programming - TV Nova S, Informer TV, Kurir TV, TV K1, and Blic TV - with TV Nova S being critical of the government and the remaining channels predominantly pro-government CRTA Media Monitoring of Political Pluralism; CRTA Media Monitoring of President Aleksandar Vučić's public speeches, press conferences and their coverage. . A similar pattern is evident at the local and regional level: among television stations that provide at least a minimum amount of news and current affairs programming, virtually all display a predominantly pro-government orientation, with KTV Zrenjanin as the only exception CRTA Media Monitoring of Political Pluralism; CRTA Media Monitoring of President Aleksandar Vučić's public speeches, press conferences and their coverage. .

Euronews Serbia, whose television market share is among the lowest, with just 0.07%, operates within a media ecosystem that offers limited political pluralism and diversity of editorial perspectives - pro-government outlets dominating national, cable, regional, and local television Within the television market, the share of the TV channels that are considered critical towards the government is 1,60% for N1, 1,60% for Nova S and 0,34% for Insajder. .

Euronews stated that the launch of the channel would allow Serbian viewers to hear news from a channel devoted to objective, impartial, and precise journalism, "which the Euronews family and its media promote wherever they are".

However, the opening of Euronews Serbia was met with controversies stemming from the ownership structure of the entity which acquired the licence. The franchise was acquired by Telekom Serbia - the state-owned telecommunications operator with a dominant position in the country's cable market and communications infrastructure with 62,3% of market share - at the time when the law was explicitly prohibiting the state from owning or establishing media. Channels within Telekom Serbia cable portfolio are also carried by other major distributors, (SBB, Yettel and others), giving them potential reach across more than 99% of Serbia's territory. The ownership arrangement was formalised through Telekom's Arena Channels Group. Telekom Serbia stated that the arrangement did not violate the law, citing the approval of the Regulatory Authority for Electronic Media and an opinion of the Ministry of Information. Nevertheless, questions persisted over the fact that the Serbian state was a major stakeholder (58%) in Telekom Serbia. Negotiations to acquire Euronews in Serbia were first announced in 2019 by Telekom Serbia and a media advisor to President Aleksandar Vučić, which has since led parts of the public to question whether the channel's launch was lawful and linked to state interests.

At the time, the European Parliament continually expressed concerns about issues linked to media concentration in the Telekom Serbia case, as well as emphasised the allegations that the ruling party is using it to increase its influence over the media market in Serbia.

Amendments to Serbia's media laws adopted in 2023 subsequently changed the legal framework by permitting companies with majority state ownership to establish and own media outlets.

Monitoring of Euronews Serbia's central news (Euronews Veče) shows a pronounced imbalance in the distribution of political airtime. Of the 9,730 seconds of total political content in central news during July, the ruling majority received almost seven times more airtime (87%) than the opposition (13%) (Chart 2).

A similar imbalance in the ruling majority and opposition representatives is visible in guest selection across other parts of Euronews Serbia's programme. Government representatives and pro-government interlocutors accounted for 52%, compared with 14% for opposition representatives and government-critical interlocutors An interlocutor was classified as pro-government or government-critical when multiple previously monitored public appearances demonstrated a consistent pattern of positions towards the government and its policies, either positive or negative. (Chart 7). Neutral An interlocutor was classified as neutral when an orientation could not be established over multiple previously monitored public appearances, thus not demonstrating a consistent pattern of positions towards the government or its policies. interlocutors accounted for the remaining 34%.

Out of 142 guest appearances on Euronews Serbia in July, CRTA thematically analysed a majority (56%) that fall under the socio-political thematic category Topical analysis excludes guest appearances in the Press Review programme segment, where the concept covers multiple topics. . The remaining appearances were excluded from this analysis because they were recorded within the Press Review programme segment, where the concepts cover multiple topics at once.

The analysis shows that Euronews Serbia's programming in July put strong focus on geopolitical and international security issues. Topics such as the economy, energy, corruption, crime, and human rights received considerably fewer dedicated discussions.

International politics was the most represented topic within the socio-political category - 27%. It was followed by domestic politics with 23%, global wars and international conflicts with 16%, European integration with 10%, regional politics with 9%, and other topics (energy, economy, Kosovo, human rights, healthcare, etc.) with 15%.

Together, international politics, global wars and international conflicts, and regional politics accounted for more than half of the appearances when it comes to social and political issues. By contrast, other topics - the economy and energy had two guest appearances each, as did corruption and crime, while human rights had one.

When it comes to guest structure, neutral interlocutors were the largest individual group in all three areas. On international issues, more than half interlocutors are classified as neutral, 38% as pro-government, and 10% as government-critical. In global wars and international conflicts, neutral interlocutors accounted for almost 70%, while in regional politics they accounted for almost 60%.

Eight guest appearances were recorded on European integration: half by government representatives and half by interlocutors classified as neutral. There were no opposition or government-critical guests.

Domestic politics was the second most represented topic in guest appearances - more than ⅔ guest appearances involved pro-government interlocutors, including state officials. The remaining guests were classified as government-critical or neutral. No guest formally classified as an opposition representative appeared in discussions on domestic politics. Although critical perspectives were not entirely absent, the discussions did not include political alternatives presented directly by opposition representatives.

Airtime and guest selection represent only part of the editorial structure through which political and social issues reach the audience. The joint analysis of the opening news headlines ("heads") of Euronews Veče and announcements for programmes featuring guests shows how the selection, prioritisation, and initial framing of topics shape the context in which these issues are presented.

The analysis of announcements adds another dimension to the monitoring: beyond who receives airtime and who is invited to speak, it examines which topics are prioritised and how they are initially framed before being developed within the programmes themselves.

Domestic political topics were often introduced through the activities of the president, the government, and other state institutions, with an emphasis on stability, results, international contacts, and measures presented as responses to citizens' problems. Even when the starting point is a crisis or problem - such as fuel prices, NIS, African swine fever, European integration or social issues - Euronews Serbia relies on and relays the institutions' official framing of domestic political events.

In main headlines, the opposition is significantly less often presented as a source of public policies or alternative solutions. When opposition activities are emphasized in headlines, it gives an impression of conflicting and opportunistic actors - associated with electoral calculations, parliamentary conflicts, no-confidence initiatives against the Government or verbal conflicts with government representatives.

In foreign policy coverage, a recurring frame presents Serbia as an internationally relevant and autonomous actor. The strategic dialogue with the United States, relations with France, the UAE, and other partners, as well as Serbia's positioning towards the EU, Ukraine, and Russia, are often presented through state initiative, diplomatic activity, and international recognition.

The European Union appears in several announcements through themes of slowness, political inconsistency, or insufficient recognition of Serbia's reform progress.

Kosovo and regional issues are often introduced through the vulnerability of Serbs, institutional injustice, and the responsibility or passivity of international actors.

Some announcements also contain biased or emotionally charged language, including journalistic formulations such as "lawlessness and retaliation," "political pressure," "cumbersome European bureaucracy," "historic success" and "substantive breakthrough". Such language provides an initial interpretative frame through which the audience encounters the story.

The in-depth qualitative analysis of guest appearances examines how detected patterns operate once a discussion begins. It focuses on the selection and combination of sources, the presence or absence of alternative perspectives, the use and verifiability of claims, and the extent to which journalists challenge, contextualise, or verify what their interlocutors say.

The initial qualitative review was subsequently harmonised through a common coding framework applied to a sample of 18 unique programmes and segments. The framework distinguished between victimisation or vulnerability, legitimisation of government or state policy, delegitimisation of domestic opposition and critical actors, delegitimisation of other actors, unsupported verifiable claims and attribution of unsubstantiated motives. Journalistic conduct was assessed separately through the presence of alternative perspectives, critical or counter-questions, follow-up questions and requests for evidence or verification.

The in-depth analysis reveals two dominant frames. The first one is that victimisation or vulnerability was identified in almost ⅔ of analysed programmes and segments in the sample The coding did not treat the mere presence of victims or discussion of victimhood; it was applied only when vulnerability functioned as a broader political or interpretative frame. . Serbia, its institutions, Serbs, or other actors were presented through frames of pressure, injustice, double standards, persecution, or hostile action. The second one is legitimisation of the government, state institutions, or current state policy identified in almost ⅔ of sampled cases, as well. This frame was recorded when the government or its policies were described as competent, responsible, successful, stabilising or protective.

The victimisation framework is often present in coverage of regional issues. One illustrative example is the programme discussing constitutional changes in Montenegro and the status of the Serbian language. The Serbian community is portrayed as politically and culturally unequal, with its legitimate demands being ignored or "sacrificed" for the sake of European integration. This framing is particularly evident in the guest's claims that "the position of one people" cannot be "sacrificed for the sake of a political goal or membership in an international organisation" and that there is a policy in Brussels aimed at "minimising the Serbian factor in Montenegro in some way." The victimisation frame is not limited to the guests' statements: it is also partly reproduced through the presenter's questions, including the assertion that "the language of the majority is being placed on an equal footing with minority languages" and the question of what the constitutional changes mean for citizens who constitute the majority and speak Serbian. These claims and assumptions are not accompanied by a meaningful counterpoint, an explanation of an alternative legal or political perspective, or verification of claims concerning the EU's role, further reinforcing the portrayal of the Serbian community as collectively disadvantaged and politically marginalised.

A strong victimisation frame also appears in the interview with the Minister of Administration and Local Self-Government, Snežana Paunović. While the host does directly raise the legal weight of her earlier statement - that she would have ethnically cleansed Kosovo had she been Slobodan Milošević - by twice returning to the term "ethnic cleansing" and its association with war crimes, he does not press the point when the Minister deflects with a counter-example rather than addressing the legal substance of the question. This allows her broader characterisation of the criticism as a political and media "campaign" orchestrated by the opposition, the EU, and Kosovo to stand largely unchallenged by the end of the segment. Her personal experience as a refugee from Kosovo also functions within the conversation as an argument lending legitimacy to her political position, introduced repeatedly without being placed in critical relation to the statement itself.

When it comes to the segments of conversations which promote the government's legitimacy, one of the clear embodiments of this narrative is the portrayal of president Vučić. Guests endorsed the president's politics, describing him as an experienced statesman, an expert on international relations, a pragmatic leader, and a protector of Serbia's interests.

Opposite to apparent endorsement of state policies and institutions sits the narrative in which other actors are delegitimised, including domestic opposition, students, protests, or other critical actors. This position was recorded in ⅓ of the sample.

European integration is generally not called into question as Serbia's strategic goal in the analysed programmes. However, the European Union and individual European actors frequently appear within frames of pressure, political bias, or double standards.

In discussions with government representatives, Serbia's European path is presented as a policy actively pursued by the current government, while stagnation or negative assessments of the process are at times attributed to factors outside the government's direct responsibility - political conditionality, attitudes towards Kosovo and Russia, the actions of the opposition, or the positions of individual European actors.

In one discussion, the European Commission is treated as a more relevant source for assessing Serbia's progress, while criticism from the European Parliament is presented as more politically motivated and susceptible to the influence of the domestic opposition. The focus of criticism is thus partly shifted from its substance to the political motives of those expressing it.

A similar pattern appears in the discussion with aforementioned minister of public administration, Snežana Paunović. Reactions by European institutions to her controversial statement are linked to claims of double standards: the swift condemnation of the Serbian minister's statement suggesting that ethnic cleansing should have been carried out in the 1990s in Kosovo is contrasted with an allegedly insufficient response to the problems and vulnerability of Serbs. Certain Members of the European Parliament are portrayed as politically or emotionally biased towards Kosovo Albanians.

In discussions concerning Kosovo, European actors also appear as insufficiently effective or willing to protect the interests of Serbs, reinforcing also the broader self-victimization frame of Serbia and Serbs as exposed to pressure and unequal treatment.

Taken together, these examples point to a recurring pattern: European integration remains a strategic goal, while criticism, demands, and actions by individual European actors are often interpreted through frames of political pressure, bias, and double standards.

One interview, however, provides a more balanced allocation of responsibility between the Serbian government and the EU. In the discussion with Steven Blockmans, responsibility for the stagnation of Serbia's European path is not placed solely on the EU. Blockmans openly problematises the state of democracy, institutions, and the rule of law in Serbia, while also criticising the slow pace of the EU enlargement process.

The level and format of thematic attention devoted to different events tied to transitional justice and the culture of war remembrance varied across the monitored period.

Euronews Serbia broadcast a dedicated segment on the suffering of Serbs in Bratunac and the Middle Podrinje region, as well as a thematic discussion on Holocaust denial and the importance of confronting historical crimes. By contrast, no dedicated thematic programme or segment on the anniversary of the Srebrenica genocide was identified in the monitored material. This finding refers specifically to the absence of dedicated thematic coverage and should not be interpreted as evidence that Srebrenica was absent from Euronews Serbia's news reporting altogether.

The segment on Bratunac is strongly structured around a frame of Serbian victimisation and collective suffering. Personal testimony, a commemorative tone, and the focus on the suffering of Serbian civilians and soldiers create a strongly emotional frame, while the broader historical context remains in the background.

By contrast, the programme on the Holocaust shows that Euronews Serbia can address the topic of historical crimes through a clear normative framework: the relativisation and distortion of facts are presented as a problem for a democratic society, while the journalist's questions probe more deeply. The qualitative analysis of this segment itself did not identify manipulative elements.

Taken together, these differences point to an asymmetry in the level and format of thematic attention devoted to different issues of war memory within the monitored material. The comparison concerns the editorial and thematic treatment of issues related to the culture of remembrance, rather than an equivalence between the historical events themselves.

One of the most apparent professional patterns in Euronews Serbia's programming is the gap between asking a critical question and consistently testing the response. International standards on journalistic ethics hold that news reporting should rest on truthfulness "ensured by the appropriate means of verification and proof". Measured against this standard, probing or critically questioning a guest without accompanying verification of the response represents only a partial application of the scrutiny the standard describes.

Across the qualitative material, hosts frequently ask relevant questions, often introducing a critical angle or an alternative interpretation. However, when answers are evasive, contain verifiable claims, or advance contested interpretations, hosts do not consistently follow up, request supporting evidence, provide context, or independently test the claims being made. As a result, the presence of critical questions should not in itself be interpreted as evidence of sustained journalistic scrutiny: in many instances, the initial challenge is not carried through into a systematic examination of the guest's response.

A discussion on the treatment of Serbs in Kosovo provides a good example. The host raises questions about the motives behind proceedings against Serbs and asks whether they represent another form of revanchism. In response, the guest goes further, claiming that the proceedings are part of "a deliberate policy of rewriting the truth and creating a completely different narrative" about the war in Kosovo. Although the question opens space for critical scrutiny, the stronger claim that follows is not further examined: the host does not ask what evidence supports the attribution of such a deliberate strategy, introduce an alternative explanation, or otherwise seek to verify the assertion before the interview ends.

Within the sample, interviews and guest discussions repeatedly followed a similar sequence:

The analysis suggests that Euronews Serbia deviates from a balanced approach to reporting and analysing the socio-political issues in Serbia. The data reveal that the channel rather reflects structural disproportion favouring the ruling majority in airtime presence, frequency of representation, and their occasional biased, i.e. positive coverage - features that are persistent and dominant across the mainstream media landscape in Serbia. This disproportion appears to stem from a broad structural advantage embedded in the programme's editorial approach and inconsistent application of journalistic scrutiny.

The monitoring shows that government actors receive substantially more political visibility, while government and pro-government positions are represented by a larger and more diverse pool of interlocutors across the broader programming. Together, these patterns provide government-aligned perspectives with greater opportunities to define political problems, explain their causes and present possible solutions.

This advantage is also visible in the distribution of political access. No formally classified opposition representative appeared in guest discussions specifically devoted to domestic politics, although government-critical voices were present. The issue is therefore not the complete absence of critical perspectives, but the more limited space available for political alternatives to be articulated directly by the actors who represent them.

Journalistic scrutiny only partly mitigates these imbalances. Critical questions are present, and the qualitative sample includes examples of balanced confrontation and sustained scrutiny. However, questioning is not consistently followed by requests for evidence, additional context, follow-up questions or independent verification.

Taken together, these findings point to a broader problem for political pluralism: an unequal opportunity of different political perspectives to shape the political reality presented to the audience.

All findings in this report are based on the monitoring conducted by the CRTA team from 1 to 31 July 2026, with the exception of President Aleksandar Vučić's live appearances, which are tracked from 2024 to 2026 to show change over time. The longitudinal comparison of Vučić's appearances was derived from CRTA's broader media-monitoring database, with the data filtered to include only live appearances broadcast on Euronews Serbia during January-July of 2024, 2025 and 2026.

The sample subjected to the analysis below comprises Euronews Serbia's central news programme and four informative shows airing during the monitored period. This report draws on three distinct strands of analysis: one quantitative and two qualitative.

Quantitative analysis

1. Quantitative media monitoring, supplemented by guest appearance analysis

The monitoring of political pluralism was conducted throughout July 2026, focusing on the central news programme Euronews Veče, aired daily at 19:00. Political representation was measured in seconds, recording the total airtime received by political actors, the tone of coverage (positive, neutral or negative), and whether actors appeared in an active role - speaking directly to the audience - or a passive role - being mentioned or discussed by journalists or other political actors. The monitored sample comprised 9,730 seconds of political representation.

In addition to the monitoring of political airtime, CRTA analysed all guest appearances across several informative shows: Euronews Jutro, Euronews Intervju dana, Euronews Dan, Euronews Veče, and one edition of Direktno sa Minjom Miletić which aired during the monitored period. A total of 142 guest appearances were recorded during July. For the analysis of thematic distribution, the Press Review segment was excluded because individual editions cover multiple subjects and cannot be assigned to a single thematic category. This left 79 guest appearances for thematic analysis assigned to the socio-political thematic categories used in the monitoring.

Political guests were classified according to their formal political affiliation as either government or opposition representatives, while other guests were classified according to their established public orientation as pro-government, government-critical or neutral. An interlocutor was classified as pro-government or government-critical when multiple previously monitored public appearances demonstrated a consistent pattern of positions towards the government and its policies. Interlocutors for whom such a consistent orientation could not be established were classified as neutral. This approach distinguishes a guest's pre-existing classification from the perspective expressed in a specific programme, allowing the analysis to examine separately who is given access to the programme and what position or perspective they bring to a particular discussion.

Qualitative analysis

2. Analysis of programme announcements

CRTA conducted a qualitative analysis of editorial framing in programme announcements. The analysis covered two sets of material: the opening news headlines ("heads") of the central news programme Euronews Veče and announcements for programmes featuring guests published on the official Euronews Serbia YouTube channel. The two sets were analysed jointly to identify recurring patterns in the selection, prioritisation and initial framing of politically and socially relevant topics before they were developed within the programmes themselves.

3. In-depth analysis of programme content and journalistic standards

Finally, CRTA conducted an in-depth qualitative analysis of a purposive, maximum-variation sample of programmes and segments addressing politically and socially relevant topics. The sample of 18 cases was selected to capture variation across the monitored programming, including different thematic areas, programme formats, and types of interlocutors and their political or public orientation. The purpose of the qualitative sample was not to produce statistically representative estimates of the prevalence of individual frames across Euronews Serbia's entire programming, but to identify and examine recurring patterns of framing, source selection, representation of different perspectives and journalistic scrutiny across diverse editorial contexts.

A common coding framework was applied to the qualitative sample. The framework distinguished between victimisation or vulnerability, legitimisation of government or state policy, delegitimisation of domestic opposition and critical actors, delegitimisation of other actors, unsupported verifiable claims and attribution of unsubstantiated motives. Journalistic conduct was assessed through the presence of alternative perspectives, critical or counter-questions, follow-up questions, and requests for evidence or verification. Frequencies reported from this component therefore describe patterns within the qualitative material and are not estimates of their prevalence across Euronews Serbia's entire programming.