President Aleksandar Vučić phoned Mirko Pavlov, a 66‑year‑old man from Sremski Karlovci, to apologize for the way police treated him during a road blockade in Novi Sad, an incident captured on video and widely shared. Both opposition and pro-government outlets agree that Pavlov was trying to pass through a blocked intersection when he confronted demonstrators and was then forcefully handled by police and verbally attacked by a younger man. They report that the Novi Sad Police Department opened disciplinary proceedings against two officers, with one officer suspended, and that top officials including Vučić and Miloš Vučević publicly condemned the police conduct. Both sides also acknowledge that protests and gatherings subsequently took place in Novi Sad in response to the incident, including rallies by Serbian Progressive Party supporters and other civic groups.

Coverage across the spectrum concurs that the blockade itself was considered an illegal or unauthorized obstruction of traffic, that the police intervention and state response became a high-profile political issue, and that internal police control found no criminal elements in the officers’ behavior while still triggering disciplinary procedures. Media on both sides describe institutional involvement by the Interior Ministry leadership in Belgrade, note that the case has become a test of how Serbia’s institutions respond to controversial policing during protests, and agree that the episode has fueled debate about how law enforcement should balance maintaining public order with protecting citizens’ rights. There is also broad agreement that the incident has been used by different political actors and movements—both ruling-party affiliates and opposition-leaning groups—to mobilize supporters and frame wider narratives about governance, accountability, and the rule of law.

Areas of disagreement

Framing of the incident. Opposition-aligned outlets present the episode primarily as an example of problematic or excessive policing at a protest-related blockade, emphasizing the rough treatment of an elderly citizen and the subsequent political maneuvering. Pro-government outlets frame it foremost as an unjust attack on a law-abiding pensioner by aggressive road blockers, stressing that the main outrage is the failure to protect him from illegal protesters. While opposition media underline the nuances of the interaction and the potential overreaction of police, pro-government media highlight the chaos caused by blockaders and the righteousness of Pavlov’s attempt to pass.

Responsibility and blame. Opposition outlets distribute responsibility across state institutions, suggesting that both the police on the ground and the Interior Ministry leadership bear blame, with some sources hinting at political interference from Belgrade in how the case is handled. Pro-government outlets direct blame mainly at the road blockers and the younger man who verbally attacked Pavlov, arguing that the police erred by not acting more decisively against the protesters rather than against the pensioner. In opposition coverage, the incident is a symptom of a politicized and inconsistent system of authority, whereas in pro-government coverage it is proof that parts of the police failed to confront anti-government agitators properly.

Interpretation of Vučić’s apology and disciplinary action. Opposition-aligned media tend to depict Vučić’s personal apology and the rapid suspension of one officer as politically driven damage control, sometimes suggesting that the officers are being scapegoated under pressure from central authorities. Pro-government outlets cast the apology as a sincere, humane gesture from the president and a sign that state leadership will not tolerate misconduct against ordinary citizens, portraying the disciplinary process as a necessary correction. Where opposition narratives stress the instrumentalization of internal procedures to project accountability, pro-government narratives depict a responsive state that swiftly rectifies a wrong.

Treatment of the police and protesters. Opposition coverage amplifies voices, such as the Kreni-promeni movement and some Novi Sad officers, who argue that the police acted lawfully and are now being unfairly targeted for political reasons, pointing to leaks of private photos and pressure from party structures. Pro-government outlets, by contrast, largely avoid the theme of police victimization and instead depict parts of the force as insufficiently firm toward protesters, while praising analysts and ruling-party figures who demand stricter enforcement against blockades. As opposition media focus on a chilling effect within the police and the risk of punishing legal conduct to enforce political loyalty, pro-government media focus on the need for the police to better defend peaceful citizens from disruptive protests.

In summary, opposition coverage tends to portray the Novi Sad incident as evidence of politicized policing and top-down manipulation of accountability mechanisms, while pro-government coverage tends to present it as a case of the leadership humanely correcting a localized failure to protect a law-abiding citizen from violent, anti-government blockaders.