Cardiologist Vladimir Peruničić of the Clinical Center of Montenegro was arrested after sending a series of offensive and sexually explicit Instagram messages to journalist and TV host Magdalena Čelanović of Gradska televizija. Both opposition and pro-government outlets agree that he admitted to sending the messages and claimed he was intoxicated at the time, that the case was taken up by the prosecutor, and that a court hearing is expected where he could face a custodial sentence. Coverage on both sides also notes that this is not his first incident with the same journalist, referencing previous sanctions including fines and mandated treatment, as well as prior complaints related to insults, threats, and harassment.
Across the spectrum, media describe Peruničić as a doctor employed at the main state Clinical Center and Čelanović as a journalist who publicly disclosed the harassment. They concur that the prosecutor is seeking a harsh or maximum penalty, that the incident exposes ongoing issues of harassment and threats against journalists in Montenegro, and that alcohol abuse has been cited as a factor in the doctor’s behavior without being treated as an excuse. Outlets on both sides emphasize the institutional dimension: the role of the prosecution and courts, the responsibility of major public health institutions to address staff misconduct, and broader concerns about how effectively the state protects media workers from intimidation and abuse.
Framing of the incident. Opposition-aligned sources tend to present the case as part of a broader pattern of institutional tolerance for harassment of journalists and as evidence that those connected to public institutions feel untouchable, sometimes linking it to a climate created by the ruling structures. Pro-government outlets instead focus on the lurid content of the messages and Peruničić’s personal failings, framing the incident primarily as an individual moral and professional lapse rather than a systemic issue. While the opposition stresses structural impunity and political responsibility, pro-government coverage highlights the doctor’s alcoholism, prior behavior, and the prosecutor’s push for a maximum sentence as proof that the system is responding properly.
Institutional accountability. Opposition media generally question the commitment of the Clinical Center, the health ministry, and law enforcement to proactively discipline or remove repeat offenders, arguing that previous mild sanctions show institutional complacency and a double standard when powerful professionals are involved. Pro-government outlets, by contrast, underscore that the doctor was arrested, previously fined, and ordered to treatment, using these actions to argue that institutions are functioning and improving. Opposition narratives portray these steps as too little and too late, while pro-government narratives depict them as evidence of a firm stance against harassment and a maturing rule of law.
Political and societal context. Opposition coverage is more likely to tie the harassment to a hostile environment for independent and critical journalists, suggesting that weak state reactions in earlier cases have emboldened abusers and that ruling circles bear indirect responsibility for the climate. Pro-government media largely avoid such political framing, presenting the case as apolitical and personal and emphasizing that the victim works for a critical outlet yet still receives prosecutorial protection, which they say undercuts claims of systemic repression. Where opposition outlets might connect this incident to previous attacks and threats against journalists under current or past governments, pro-government outlets tend to isolate it from broader media freedom debates.
Penalties and future reforms. Opposition commentators tend to argue that even a maximum sentence for Peruničić would not be enough without wider reforms, such as stricter disciplinary rules for public employees, clearer protections for journalists, and faster, more consistent prosecution of similar cases. Pro-government coverage focuses more on the symbolism of a potential prison sentence for a high-status doctor, suggesting that such a verdict would send a strong deterrent message and demonstrate that no one is above the law. While opposition sources call for systemic legal and institutional changes beyond this single verdict, pro-government sources stress the adequacy of existing mechanisms when they are applied.
In summary, opposition coverage tends to treat the case as emblematic of deeper structural and political problems surrounding journalist safety and institutional impunity, while pro-government coverage tends to frame it as an extreme but isolated act by a repeat-offending doctor that the current system is now handling decisively.
