Media on both sides agree that a confrontation occurred at a Novi Sad roadblock when an elderly man, identified as Mirko Pavlov, tried to pass through a blocked intersection where citizens were protesting and traffic was obstructed. Video of the incident shows a younger man verbally attacking Pavlov and police officers physically removing or handling the elderly man, prompting public outcry and rapid institutional reactions. Both opposition and pro-government outlets report that the Novi Sad Police Department initiated disciplinary proceedings against two officers involved in the intervention, and that one of them was suspended pending the outcome. They likewise concur that President Aleksandar Vučić personally contacted Pavlov, apologized on behalf of the state, called the police conduct unacceptable, and publicly signaled that state bodies would “do their job” in following up on the episode.

Coverage across the spectrum also agrees that the incident is tied to ongoing political and civic mobilization around road blockades and commemorative gatherings in Novi Sad, including protests against blockades and counter-protests criticizing police behavior. All outlets acknowledge the role of the Interior Ministry and Novi Sad Police Administration as key institutions managing both the investigation and public messaging. They agree that the case has become a symbol in debates over policing standards, citizens’ rights at protests, and the appropriate use of force against elderly or vulnerable people. There is shared recognition that the fallout includes not only disciplinary scrutiny of individual officers but broader questions about how law enforcement should respond to politically charged street actions and the balance between public order and civil liberties.

Areas of disagreement

Nature of the incident. Opposition-aligned outlets tend to frame the core problem as disproportionate police force used against an elderly citizen during a blockade, emphasizing the physical handling by officers as the primary wrongdoing, while treating the younger man’s verbal aggression as secondary. Pro-government outlets invert that emphasis, describing the blockade itself as illegal and highlighting the younger activist as the main aggressor who “attacked the weak Mirko,” with the police portrayed as failing to protect him. While both note the same video evidence, opposition media stress state overreach and intimidation at protests, whereas pro-government media stress the dangers posed by road blockers to ordinary citizens.

Responsibility and blame. Opposition sources largely blame the political leadership in Belgrade and the Interior Ministry for creating a climate of political pressure that leads to selective disciplinary action and instrumentalized policing, sometimes describing the process as a “lynching” of officers for political optics. Pro-government outlets, by contrast, personalize responsibility at the street level, focusing on the individual road blocker and the specific officer whose behavior toward Pavlov is branded shameful, while praising top leaders for reacting swiftly and humanely. In this telling, the central authorities are corrective and benevolent, whereas in opposition narratives they are the architects of an abusive system.

Treatment of police officers. Opposition reporting frequently portrays the suspended officer and his colleague as scapegoats, quoting insiders who say internal reviews found no criminal wrongdoing and suggesting they are being punished for not aligning with political expectations rather than for illegal conduct. Pro-government coverage emphasizes that disciplining the officer proves the system’s readiness to sanction any abuse, presenting the suspension as appropriate accountability rather than persecution. Where opposition media underscore solidarity with the officers from parts of civil society like Kreni-promeni, pro-government media highlight ruling-party figures and analysts who condemn the officer’s behavior as incompatible with professional policing.

Political meaning of protests. For opposition outlets, the gathering of ruling-party supporters outside the Novi Sad Police Administration is framed as a politicized pressure campaign and an example of how the ruling party mobilizes its base to influence institutional processes, while independent movements are cast as defending the rule of law and protest rights. Pro-government outlets frame the same and related protests as a spontaneous, legitimate reaction by citizens outraged that an elderly man was mistreated, portraying the demonstrators as defenders of order against disruptive blockaders. This leads opposition media to see a pattern of partisan instrumentalization of both protests and police, whereas pro-government media use the protests to reinforce a narrative of popular backing for the president’s stance and for stricter action against road blockades.

In summary, opposition coverage tends to depict the Novi Sad roadblock incident as an example of politicized policing and selective disciplinary action that ultimately serves ruling-party interests, while pro-government coverage tends to present it as an isolated misconduct corrected by a responsible leadership that stands with ordinary citizens against aggressive road blockaders.