Information of non-acceptance of an anonymous complaint about a column published on the Antena M portal

The appeal challenges the methodology and professional basis of the text. The complainant states that the column simultaneously calls into question the existence or availability of certain works and draws conclusions about their quality and credibility, and asks the question: "if the works allegedly do not exist, are not available or the author did not have access to them, on what basis was their analysis carried out?"

In particular, the reliance on artificially generated text detection tools is contested. The complainant believes that such tools "can be useful as auxiliary indicators, but do not in themselves constitute expert evidence", as their results are probabilistic and subject to error. Regarding plagiarism claims, he points out that it remains unclear "what was allegedly plagiarized, by whom it was plagiarized, and on the basis of which evidence such a conclusion was reached", with the assessment that the plagiarism claim requires proof, not an assumption.

The complainant also points out that the person written about in the column was a minor at the time of the described events, that he was not the creator of the media narrative that surrounded him - because his public promotion was organized by the school, the media, event organizers and other institutions - and that earlier media exposure does not remove the right to verified facts and responsible reporting. It also states the existence of a psychological risk for that person.

Acting on the complaint, the Media Council for Self-Regulation informed the applicant on 21 July, 2026, that, in accordance with Article 4 of the Rules of Procedure of the Complaints Commission, only program content published no more than three months before the date of the complaint can be considered. As the contested text was published on 30 September, 2025, that deadline has passed, which is why the Council is unable to deal with this appeal.

The non-acceptance of the complaint does not apply to the fact that it was submitted anonymously. Article 3 of the Rules of Procedures expressly stipulates that an anonymous person can also submit a complaint, if the media and program content to which the complaint refers to is precisely determined, which in this case was fulfilled. The only reason for non-acceptance is the expiration of the deadline.

The Commission for Monitoring and Complaints did not consider this appeal, nor were the allegations from it assessed on merit. The Media Council promptly informed the applicant about the outcome and the reasons for not accepting the appeal and took everything within its competence.

Ranko Vujović
Executive Secretary
Media Council for Self-Regulation