It leads one to conclude that the interests are multi-layered, and that what, on the surface, appears as disagreement and criticism of , a Moscow-based international news agency owned by the Russian government.“We’ve simply adapted to the local legal framework, and I think that the laws here are, in principle, quite good,” states Ljubinka Milinčić, the chief editor of is being forced to overcome in order to operate normally in other countries, particularly in the EU, its launch in Serbia has transpired with no government interference, and the outlet is operating with no difficulty whatsoever.

Regarding the potential difficulties or resistance related to the broadcaster’s launch, Jugoslav Ćosić notes, “There have been intentions to block the launch of journalists have found themselves at the receiving end of the Serbian Prime Minister Aleksandar Vučić’s barbed remarks. Vučić took the occasion to publically slap labels on the outlet, addressing one of its journalists by his first name and stating, among other things, that “you people at ” were “often wrong, while I am only wrong every once and a while.”A mere few days before the press conference, Vučić met with David Petraeus, the chairman of the KKR Global Institute and a former CIA director, with whom he had also been meeting as the “problematic” articles of media laws were being modified, in April 2014.

The most recent meeting , held in May 2016, concerned potential new investments of the American investment fund in Serbia.

Due to their language compatibility and shared cultural space, the states of former Yugoslavia apparently make for “fertile soil” in which to plant a new-old media market and to root a new-old regional audience. Sheer economic interest or a desire for political and cultural influence?

In the contexts of economic crisis and political instability, how does the arrival of these global media influence the media systems in the region’s countries?

To Zoran Ćirjaković, a journalist and lecturer on media at the Faculty of Media and Communications in Belgrade, the key problem seems to be that of “ideological imbalance”, visible in the National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia during its previous term and in the media sphere: “There are hardly any pro-Russian media [in this country] offering any sort of alternative to what we call the ‘Euro-Atlantic Integrations’, which are being represented as a mandatory, common sense policy, the only normal policy in fact.”On the other hand, the most recent composition of the Serbian National Assembly is home to several parties that declare themselves as being “pro-Russian”.

Waxing and waning of political fractions inevitably imprints itself on the situation in the media field.

The only question is whether the conduct of the media directly mirrors the power relations between political groups.

This, according to professor Snježana Milivojević, is where the true problem lies, since “democracy” and the new media context have only produced one form of pluralism, namely the pluralism based on political parallelism.

The media legislation, over which the entire country had toiled during the 2010–2014 period, and which has been described as ‘never better’ and ‘completely in sync with the European Union’, has shown upon its adoption that it could neither establish any kind of order nor adequately regulate potential new developments and emergence of new platforms.”Media producer and theoretician Stanko Crnobrnja also notes that the most recent influx of foreign media into the market has been caused by the new media legislation adopted in 2014.

“These laws allow for complete non-transparency of ownership and have enabled foreign media companies in Serbia to operate in total secrecy,” Crnobrnja claims.

In contrast to the Prime Minister’s successful business relationship with, and significant interest in, one of KKR’s leading executives, he uses less than friendly tones when communicating with journalists.