Decision on the Appeal of a Group of Citizens from Cetinje Against Pobjeda

The Appeals Commission, reviewing the case concerning the published article titled “Young Man Suspected of Raping a Dog”, identified certain inaccuracies that could have led to a misinterpretation of relevant facts regarding the event in Cetinje. Specifically, the subheading “Police Investigate Animal Abuse in Njegoš Park in Cetinje” was not based on confirmed information, as at the time of publication there was no official confirmation that the alleged abuse had actually occurred.

Additionally, the headline “Young Man Suspected of Raping a Dog” did not align with the legal definition of the term “suspect”, as a person only acquires the status of suspect once the competent authorities, i.e., the police or prosecutor’s office, formally accept and process the report, which was not the case here. The use of such phrasing created the impression that official proceedings had been initiated against a particular individual, although there was no legal basis for this.

The Appeals Commission considers that these inaccuracies in the headline and subheading could have misled the public and undermined the presumption of innocence, thus violating Principle I of the Journalists’ Code of Montenegro, guideline 1.2 – Accuracy. By publishing inaccurate and unverified information, the media outlet failed to fulfill its obligation to report truthfully, accurately, and in accordance with professional and ethical journalistic standards.

Reasoning

The Media Council for Self-Regulation received an anonymous appeal from a group of citizens from Cetinje regarding the article published on the Pobjeda portal on April 2 this year. The article was titled “Young Man Suspected of Raping a Dog” with the subheading “Police Investigate Animal Abuse in Njegoš Park in Cetinje”.

In the appeal, the group of citizens expressed their strongest objection to the article and its headline. They argued that the portal had recklessly and sensationally published the article about the alleged dog rape in Njegoš Park, Cetinje, neglecting the fact that the individual involved is a minor with special needs. They further claimed that this fact must have been known to the author, as the text includes the perpetrator’s name. The group considered this a serious oversight in the pursuit of exclusivity, exposing a person with a disability to public criticism and condemnation. They concluded that competent authorities should determine whether any animal abuse actually occurred, or whether the incident was exaggerated to portray the minor as an alleged dog rapist, despite the lack of evidence.

The Media Council for Self-Regulation requested a statement from the Pobjeda editorial office regarding this appeal. In its response, the editorial office stated, among other things:

"The article contained information obtained from the police that criminal investigators and the Social Work Center are investigating a report that a young man raped a dog in Njegoš Park, Cetinje. Since it was a report, Pobjeda did not publish the name or initials of the alleged perpetrator, although this information was known to the editorial team. Additionally, it was not stated that the man raped the dog, but terms such as 'allegedly' and 'suspected' were used, which is correct until the investigation concludes otherwise."

Pobjeda further claimed that “there was a video provided by the girl who reported the case, which is true. Pobjeda noticed various information about this case that had previously appeared on social media. As animal abuse is a criminal offense, the editorial office deemed it appropriate to verify these claims, regardless of the city where it allegedly occurred, which has been affected by major tragedies, as in this case. The person from Cetinje, who according to Pobjeda is an adult (though this was not relevant, as we acted with due diligence given that it was a report that could be true or not), may not be responsible or capable of being responsible for their actions, but the institutions of the system or the family caring for them must be accountable for the potential commission of a criminal act."

In the statement, Pobjeda also emphasized that they “…did not publish the health or personal data of the suspect; these details were presented in the anonymous letter signed 'Citizens of Cetinje,' which provided enough information to identify the individual, who could also be a victim given the circumstances, based on the details in the complaint that Pobjeda did not publish."

Regarding the Media Law and the Ethical Code of Journalists of Montenegro, Pobjeda stated that they “could not find any provisions that were violated. Should the Commission identify any, we are ready to be informed in order to continue professional and honorable reporting, and to respect human rights, which we have demonstrated in numerous reports, analyses, and articles dealing with human rights, minority protection, vulnerable persons, or those without adequate institutional care."

In conclusion, Pobjeda acknowledged that the mention of the controversial Fortis organization was a journalistic oversight, as it operates outside the system and employs problematic methods. They emphasized that publishing the full anonymous letter would have violated laws protecting minors or persons with disabilities. They maintained that the article factually reported that the police and Social Work Center received a report and a video and were investigating it, and that Pobjeda decided not to pursue the topic further based on subsequent official information.

The Appeals Commission reviewed all details of the disputed article, the submitted appeal, and the editorial response.

The article “Young Man Suspected of Raping a Dog”, published on April 2, is a brief text of only a few sentences. It states that criminal police are investigating a report that a young man raped a dog in Cetinje. It notes that the editorial office knows the individual’s identity but did not publish initials. It mentions the girl who witnessed and reported the incident. It also notes that no response was received from the police regarding the case. Finally, it mentions that several animal protection associations, including the informal group Fortis, got involved.

The Commission noted that, while the article was short, it was delicate and sensitive. The journalist avoided publishing any identifying details of the person involved and relied on a source close to the investigation.

Although the article included several disclaimers by the journalist about what actually happened, the Commission observed inconsistency. The subheading stated: “Police Investigate Animal Abuse in Njegoš Park in Cetinje”, implying the abuse had indeed occurred. The headline “Young Man Suspected of Raping a Dog” implied that the police had officially accepted the report and the young man was formally a suspect. These statements were not later confirmed. Later, the text used the phrase “alleged monstrous act”, but then reverted to “Report on the monstrous act”, omitting “alleged”.

After thorough review, the Commission concluded that inaccuracies in the text could lead readers to misunderstand what actually occurred in Cetinje that day. The subheading “Police Investigate Animal Abuse…” was inaccurate, as it was not confirmed whether abuse occurred. The headline “Young Man Suspected of Raping a Dog” was also inaccurate, as no official suspect status had been established.

Such inaccuracies could mislead readers into believing the dog abuse actually took place. The Appeals Commission determined that publishing these inaccurate statements violated Principle I of the Journalists’ Code, guideline 1.2. Accuracy:

(a) Before publishing, a journalist must ensure that all appropriate measures have been taken to verify the report’s accuracy. Journalists must strive to provide complete reports and must not withhold or suppress essential information.

(b) The public’s right to know cannot justify sensationalist reporting. Journalists must avoid distorting information through exaggeration, undue emphasis, or one-sided reporting. Headlines must not mislead readers about the nature of events. Facts must not be misrepresented by removing context.

Pursuant to Article 21 of the Statute of the Media Council for Self-Regulation, this decision must be published on the Pobjeda portal.

Monitoring and Complaints Commission
Aneta Spaić
Sonja Drobac
Danilo Burzan
Branko Vojičić
Ranko Vujović