The body of 53‑year‑old Mirko Bojović, who had been reported missing from Žabljak on 14 April, was found in the village of Pometenica near Žabljak after several days of intensive searching. Both opposition and pro-government outlets agree that his disappearance was officially reported to the police, that information about his clothing and last known movements was publicly shared to aid the search, and that his remains were ultimately located in a rural area after coordinated efforts involving family members, local citizens, firefighters, and police.

Across the spectrum, media note that the search operation relied on standard investigative tools, including the checking of telecommunication base-station data and available video surveillance, under the direction of the competent prosecutorial authorities. They agree that the Higher State Prosecutor's Office ordered an autopsy to determine the cause of death, and present the case within the broader framework of routine police and prosecutorial procedure for missing persons in Montenegro, highlighting institutional roles rather than contesting basic facts.

Areas of disagreement

Institutional performance. Opposition-aligned outlets tend to frame the case as another indication of systemic shortcomings in missing-person investigations, questioning whether the search began quickly enough and whether all resources were used efficiently. Pro-government media emphasize the continuity and thoroughness of the search, stressing daily field activities, the involvement of multiple services, and the use of technical measures as evidence of a professional response. While opposition reports often juxtapose this case with previous controversies around police effectiveness, pro-government coverage isolates it as a tragic but properly handled incident.

Transparency and communication. Opposition sources are more likely to stress initial gaps in public information, asking why details about Bojović’s disappearance and search strategy were not more fully shared with the community or media. Pro-government outlets underscore the publication of his description and clothing, and present this as proof that authorities communicated promptly and responsibly. In some opposition narratives, official statements are portrayed as minimal and reactive, whereas pro-government coverage treats them as sufficient and aligned with procedural norms.

Political subtext. Opposition-aligned media tend to subtly connect the tragedy to broader criticisms of governance, suggesting that any perceived delay or confusion reflects deeper issues in institutional accountability and resourcing. Pro-government outlets downplay or ignore political angles, presenting the event as an apolitical human tragedy and focusing on technical and legal aspects such as prosecutorial jurisdiction and autopsy orders. In doing so, opposition narratives frame the case within a pattern of alleged state underperformance, while pro-government narratives resist any politicization of the incident.

Future implications. Opposition coverage is more inclined to call for reviews of search protocols, better coordination between agencies, and potentially reforms aimed at faster mobilization in missing-person cases. Pro-government media instead highlight that established procedures were followed, implying that the key task is to await autopsy results rather than to reconsider policy or institutional structures. Thus, opposition voices depict the case as a catalyst for systemic debate, whereas pro-government voices stress closure through legal and forensic processes.

In summary, opposition coverage tends to cast the case as symptomatic of broader institutional weaknesses and to question whether authorities did enough at every stage, while pro-government coverage tends to depict the search and investigation as prompt, methodical, and essentially non-political, focusing on the tragedy itself rather than on systemic critique.