Protest on Vidovdan holiday, June 28, 2025, in Belgrade. Photo by Mašina, via Wikimedia Commons (CC-BY-SA 3.0).

This analysis by Nataša Stanojević was originally published by the International and Security Affairs Centre (ISAC), part of the regional initiative Western Balkans Anti-Disinformation Hub. An edited version is republished by Global Voices as part of a partnership agreement.

The protest held on June 28 this year in Belgrade, on the Serbian national and religious holiday, Vidovdan, represented the culmination of months of public discontent with government policies and systemic societal problems.

Vidovdan is deeply rooted in national history and collective memory and has often been used as a symbol of political and moral struggle. In this case, students and other citizens chose the date to underscore the seriousness of their demands for responsible governance, to call for snap elections, and advocate for essential institutional reforms.

According to estimates, the protest gathered around 140,000 people, making it one of the largest political gatherings in the past decade. The sheer size of the turnout reflects profound social frustration and a sense that institutional mechanisms for expressing discontent have completely failed. However, while the organizers’ demands were clearly defined — fighting corruption, institutional accountability, and democratization of the system — pro-government media constructed an entirely different picture.

Instead of fact-based reporting, the public sphere was flooded with sensationalist headlines and claims aimed at delegitimizing the protests and criminalizing participants. The student movement and citizens were not portrayed as advocates of democratic values, but as a threat to the stability of the state. This strategy of criminalization, typical of authoritarian regimes, allowed the authorities to justify the use of force and intensified repression.

Pro-government media in Serbia systematically employ false and manipulative narratives to discredit legitimate civic protests and normalize the state’s repressive responses. Analysis shows that key propaganda tactics include labeling participants, manipulating events, constructing an image of a foreign enemy, and glorifying police force. These practices have long-term consequences for democratic processes and freedom of expression.

Instruments of the propaganda narrative

One of the most commonly used strategies was the deployment of pejorative labels. Organizers and participants were not referred to as students or citizens but as “blockaders,” “hooligans,” and “terrorists.”

A headline in the tabloid newspaper Informer, “Anti-hooligan operation in the city center: Watch how blockaders are arrested,” illustrates how police intervention was presented as necessary and legitimate, while citizens were criminalized. The term “terrorists” carries particularly strong connotations, suggesting extremism, even though the protests were peaceful in nature.

Screenshot of Novosti.rs article with the headline ‘Bridges and the entire city under siege: The new hellish plan of blockader terrorists, they want blood and dead bodies on the streets!’ Fair use.

Media outlets widely circulated narratives about an alleged “hellish plan” by demonstrators. Headlines such as “Bridges and the entire city under siege: The new hellish plan of blockader terrorists, they want blood and dead bodies on the streets!” create an atmosphere of fear and suggest inevitable escalation into violence. These unfounded claims serve to mobilize the government’s loyal voter base and legitimize repressive measures. Rhetoric about “blood on the streets” and “danger to citizens” not only criminalizes protest participants but also frames them as a national security threat.

Pro-government discourse attributed goals to the protesters, such as “destroying the state” and “overthrowing the president.” These claims are not based on any documents or public statements by organizers, whose demands focused on improving safety, fighting corruption, and ensuring political accountability. Introducing accusations of “treason” and “collaboration with enemies” is part of a broader model of political propaganda in which social resistance is portrayed as a conspiracy against national interests.

While pro-government media insisted on an image of violent demonstrations, actual events tell a different story. According to reports from independent media and human rights organizations, the majority of the protest was peaceful. This was also confirmed by the Council of Europe.

The few incidents that occurred happened only after police intervention, during which excessive force was used. The arrests or detentions of hundreds of people, along with documented cases of physical abuse, clearly show that state repression was the dominant dynamic. This gap between the media narrative and empirical facts is a classic example of the framing technique — selective presentation of reality to shape public opinion.

The broader political context and the foreign enemy narrative

Particularly concerning is the strategy of linking the protests to alleged foreign enemies, in this case, Croatia. Certain tabloids and politicians suggested that the organizers of the protests were instruments in the hands of Croatian intelligence structures and that their goal was the destabilization of Serbia. These claims have no factual basis, but serve a clear propaganda purpose: to evoke historical tensions and use national stereotypes to create a sense of threat among citizens. (The hostilities between Serbia and Croatia have deep roots in their national narratives. These tensions began during the Ottoman Empire when many Serbian refugees were settled in Croatia by the Austrian authorities. The animosity intensified during World War II when Croatia joined the Axis powers, and was solidified during the wars that accompanied Yugoslavia’s breakup. This period culminated in Operation Storm, which resulted in the majority of Serbs fleeing Croatia.)

The use of Croatia in this narrative has a dual function: first, to mobilize patriotic sentiment; by suggesting that the protests are connected to a “hostile state,” the government reinforces its image as the defender of national interests. Second, it discredits the opposition and civic initiatives; by attributing “foreign influence” to the protests, the government delegitimizes their goals and diverts attention from internal problems such as corruption and institutional breakdown. This rhetoric relies on the well-known model of “constructing a foreign enemy,” which, according to political communication theory, serves to homogenize the electorate and justify authoritarian practices.

A particularly alarming segment of the propaganda campaign concerns the linkage of protests with the issue of Srebrenica. (The 1995 massacre of the Muslim population in Srebrenica and its surrounding areas by the Army of Republika Srpska is frequently exploited by both nationalist and anti-Western factions in Serbia. Similar to narratives that deny the Holocaust, discussions about Srebrenica range from complete denial to unsettling debates about the number of victims, their nationality, and the use of terms like “necessary military action” and “collateral damage.” Over the past 15 years, anyone who does not support these narratives has been labeled a “traitor” or a “Western agent” in official political discourse.)

In an Informer article entitled “They’ve exposed themselves! This is blockader politics: Accusing Serbia of a nonexistent genocide in Srebrenica,” students were accused of “agreeing with accusations that brand Serbs as a genocidal nation.” This narrative attempts to shift the focus from demands for democratization to a national question, creating the impression that the protests have an “anti-Serbian agenda.” In this way, civic resistance is criminalized through manipulation of one of the most emotionally charged issues in the public sphere.

A similar rhetoric is used by the portal Vaseljenska in the article “Blockaders want to declare Serbs a genocidal nation: Elections, then a government that will recognize the genocide in Srebrenica.” These claims are absent from any official demands of the organizers, but their function is clear: to discredit the protests by linking them with alleged plans to “betray national interests.” Thus, the government constructs a narrative in which students are not only “hooligans” but also agents of dangerous ideological and political projects.

Narrative vs objective facts

In the long term, such practices lead to the consolidation of authoritarian patterns of governance. When every criticism of regime representatives is labeled as “treason” or “terrorism,” the space for democratic dialogue disappears. This not only delegitimizes protests but also undermines the fundamental values on which modern democratic societies rest.

This analysis of the media narrative surrounding the Vidovdan protests demonstrates that pro-government media act as a propaganda apparatus whose primary function is the preservation of political power, not informing the public. Through the dissemination of a distorted perception of civic resistance, the construction of violent scenarios, and the invention of foreign enemies, the authorities succeed in delegitimizing valid social demands and justifying repressive measures. Such a strategy may stabilize the regime in the short term, but in the long run, it erodes the foundations of democracy and leads to further political and social crises.