An analysis of the programme “People and Events” indicates that during 2025 certain improvements in content quality were achieved compared to the previous year. There is a noticeable departure from last year’s revisionist, ideological, and politically biased narratives, with greater editorial attention and a more balanced selection of information. Despite this progress, the programme still does not fully meet the standards of RTCG’s scientific and educational programming. Errors in dates, lack of historical context, and the selective presentation of key events remain apparent, according to the publication “The Programme ‘People and Events’ – Analysis of the (Non-)Fulfilment of RTCG Public Service Standards for 2025” by Dr Adnan Prekić. The analysis was prepared within the Centre for Civic Education (CCE) project “Media for Democracy – Strengthening the Independence of RTCG for the Future of Montenegro”, supported by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
“Comparative analysis of the content of ‘People and Events’ shows visible and measurable improvements compared to the broadcasts aired by RTCG in 2024. This progress can partly be attributed to the impact of the previous analysis published within the same project, which we believe contributed to a higher-quality approach and greater editorial attention. However, the analysed material still does not fully meet the standards of a scientific and educational programme, which require the publication of accurate, scientifically verified and impartial content,” Dr Prekić emphasises.
The analysis covered 2,536 broadcasts aired from 1 January to 31 October 2025, to assess their educational value and compliance with scientific-educational standards, particularly regarding accuracy, verifiability, and impartiality. Both qualitative and quantitative methods were applied, enabling the identification of dominant narratives, recurring conceptual gaps, and neglected topics. The results were systematised into three sections: represented and neglected, blurred boundaries of truth and trauma, and mythology.
Unlike last year’s practice, this year’s cycle avoids the complete marginalization of Montenegrin cultural and historical identity. The share of information related to Montenegro increased from 21% to 30%. This has remedied part of the earlier systemic shortcomings, although clear criteria for information selection and broader historical context are still lacking. This is particularly evident for numerous items from in the area of universal history, which account for more than 50% of the content and thereby diminish the programme’s educational character. Multiple repetitions of the same information about certain individuals throughout the year, as well as inconsistent and outdated terminology, were also observed.
A large number of items are based on incorrect dates, which, according to the author, represents “one of the most serious methodological shortcomings,” as it calls into question the credibility of scientific and educational content. “These errors mostly occur in information relating to the history of Montenegro prior to 1919, when the Julian calendar was officially used. A significant number of events are incorrectly dated according to the Julian calendar, which causes confusion and fails to ensure accurate and verifiable information,” Prekić notes.
The most sensitive segment remains the depiction of the 1990s wars. Namely, key topics – such as the siege of Dubrovnik, the deportation of Bosnian refugees, the Morinj camp, the crimes in Bukovica and Kaluđerski Laz, and the bombing of Murino – are not addressed at all, despite their historical and social significance. Some items, including those on the genocide in Srebrenica and Operation Storm, were presented only partially, without clear reference to court verdicts and the necessary historical context, leaving room for relativisation.
“For example, a broadcast on 9 July stated that the Montenegrin Parliament adopted a declaration condemning the ‘mass killing in Srebrenica in 1995.’ However, it failed to clearly identify the event as genocide, and omitted the broader context,” the analysis notes.
The conclusion of the analysis is that, despite progress, it is necessary to systematically organize the methodology for selection, verification, and presentation of content. The programme should use only reliable, scientifically verified sources, with mandatory citation of literature and archival materials used to prepare the information. This would reduce factual errors and avoid subjective choices that lead to distorted interpretations.
Furthermore, the author e believes that modern history, the 1990s wars, World War II, and topics prone to revisionist interpretations require special editorial standards, including detailed contextualization and consultation with experts, to prevent partial and oversimplified presentations.
The analysis also provides a series of substantive recommendations to ensure that the programme fulfils its scientific and educational purpose on the public service broadcaster and contribute to the development of critical thinking. Specific recommendations include reducing the number of daily posts, more clearly defining content selection criteria, increasing focus on the Montenegrin historical and cultural space, and introducing expert and independent reviews of materials prior to broadcast. It is also recommended to establish the practice of using a single, consistent date for individuals who appear multiple times, accompanied by a unified and comprehensive biographical presentation, and to completely avoid imprecise, religiously coloured and outdated terminology, replacing it with scientifically valid terms. Finally, it is necessary to introduce independent and expert reviews of planned content as an additional mechanism to ensure impartiality, objectivity and a higher level of quality in this segment of the programme.
The author concludes that “by applying these guidelines, the programme would significantly enhance its scientific and educational character, enable viewers to follow content in a precise, comprehensive and contextual manner, strengthen the audience’s critical thinking, and contribute to the preservation, understanding and affirmation of Montenegrin cultural and historical identity.”
Nikola Obradović, Programme Associate