The post-election online survey (18 March 2014, a convenience sample of 1,004 participants) shows that citizens most often informed themselves about the elections via the internet and social networks (14.30%), RTS (13.24%), and TV B92 (10.83%), with a notable reliance on the press as well, above all Blic (8.96%). However, although campaign monitoring was widespread, assessments of the quality of media coverage were predominantly critical.
On the key media functions—explaining programmes, specifying consequences, and asking the “right questions”—the prevailing view is that they succeeded only partly. Regarding the claim that the media helped respondents consider the positive and negative sides of the programmes, the largest share say this was done by only a minority of media outlets (31.57%), while 18.33% believe no one helped. The pattern is similar for obtaining concrete information about programmes (30.98% “a minority,” 17.83% “no one”). When it comes to questioning politicians “the way citizens would ask,” as many as 34.06% say this was done by a minority, and 24.20% say no one did it.
The perception of bias is particularly indicative: for the statement “the media did not favour any list,” the combined responses on the side of doubt (29.78% “yes, a minority” + 23.11% “no one”) outweigh those on the side of trust (“all” 7.47% and “most” 15.74%). In addition, almost half of respondents feel the media mainly acted as transmitters: for the statement “the media only relayed what politicians said,” 35.66% answer “yes, most of them,” and 13.05% “yes, all of them.”
In comparisons among TV stations, respondents most often see RTS as the channel closest to the idea of equal representation (23.71%), yet a significant share believe that no television station presented all lists equally (24.00%), with a high proportion of “no opinion” (22.41%). For the function “it helped me decide whom to vote for,” the dominant answer is “none” (54.88%), confirming distance from media influence. The same picture appears in a direct question on influence: the media did not affect the decision to go to the polls “at all” for 56.18% of respondents, and did not affect the choice of “whom to vote for” “at all” for as many as 61.45%.
The perception of propaganda is most pronounced in questions about “who was functioning as promotion.” For “promotion of a list/party,” Pink stands out the most (18.82%) and RTS (12.65%), but here too the share of undecided respondents is high (“no opinion” 32.57%). For “promotion of the Government of Serbia,” RTS is at the top (21.12%), ahead of Pink (11.95%), with 35.46% having no opinion. In the press, Kurir most often appears as an actor in assessments of “promotion” (e.g., 16.11% for promoting a list; 11.06% for promoting the Government), while a large number of responses include “no opinion,” suggesting a segment of the audience that follows the campaign but does not engage in detailed evaluations of all media.
In a broader social context, the survey also registers a high level of apolitical/anti-political orientation: respondents most often describe themselves as apolitical (29.08%) or anti-political (23.31%). At the same time, a strong “survival logic” is present: an overwhelming majority are willing to undertake additional training to earn more (82.51% “yes”), and a significant share are also willing to work on Saturdays (49.04% “yes”), take two jobs (44.88% “yes”), relocate (41.95% “yes”), or live away from their family for work (43.19% “yes”). However, willingness to sacrifice political and labour rights is considerably lower: 45.68% reject reducing employees’ rights for economic survival, and 33.94% reject reducing political rights for a “better life” (with 24.20% who would accept it).
Methodological note: this was an online survey; the results reflect the views of survey participants and do not necessarily represent the overall electorate.