Serbia after the vote: RT shows the Informer TV storming, NYT and Meduza add the media reckoning

RT presents the storming of a pro-Vučić TV station as violence the EU ignores. The New York Times and Meduza place it after the opposition's election win and a public broadcaster's on-air apology.

By Verification deskDrafted with AI, checked and edited by the editor.

What Russian state media says

MisleadingProtesters stormed Informer TV in Belgrade, RT says; the item presents this as an act of violence.RT
UnverifiedVučić condemned the violence and accused the EU of silence, according to RT.RT
Not reported by state mediaThe RT item does not mention that the broadcaster RTV apologized on air for years of one-sided coverage after the election.RT

What is documented

The New York Times writes that supporters of the opposition movement that won Sunday's election stormed the offices of a pro-government tabloid. No second independent item in this batch describes the storming, so this rests on one outlet.The New York Times
No independent item in this batch reports Vučić's statement or the EU's reaction to the storming.The New York Times · Meduza
RTV, the public broadcaster of Vojvodina, apologized to viewers live on air for years of one-sided coverage. The New York Times and Meduza both report this.The New York Times · Meduza

RT reported that protesters stormed Informer TV in Belgrade, that Aleksandar Vučić condemned the violence and that he accused the EU of silence. The item is a short video announcement with a link to the full article, and it gives no wider context.

The New York Times confirms an attack on a pro-government tabloid’s offices. It says the attackers were supporters of the opposition movement that won Sunday’s election. The Times does not name the outlet in the text available here, and Meduza does not mention the storming.

Both independent outlets report a second development that the RT item leaves out. Radio Television of Vojvodina (RTV) apologized to viewers live on air for years of one-sided coverage during Vučić’s rule. According to Meduza, citing Serbian media, the broadcaster said it had “turned a blind eye to many things”.

None of the three items says how the EU responded, so the claim of EU silence can be neither confirmed nor refuted from this material.

Where accounts differRT frames the storming as violence that the EU ignores. The New York Times describes it as part of a post-election reckoning with the media, alongside an apology from another outlet. No independent item in this batch addresses the EU's reaction, and only the New York Times describes the storming.