Vucic Hits Out at N1 Over 'Belivuk Jersey' Photo

Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic reacted sharply to an N1 headline that tied him to Veljko Belivuk, referring to a disputed photograph said to show him in the jersey of a supporters’ group connected to the defendant. In an evening address around 7 p.m. on June 22, Vucic argued that such headlines are not journalism but, in his words, part of dirty tricks used to dehumanize and criminalize him on a daily basis. His reaction came on the same day a session of the trial of an organized crime group centered on Belivuk was held in Belgrade.

The photograph in question surfaced in media coverage of the trial. What gives the story an added twist is that Belivuk’s own defense also disputes the image’s authenticity. Veljko Belivuk, Marko Miljkovic and their lawyer Dejan Lazarevic claim the picture is a fabrication, meaning it was altered after the fact. That places the defense and the head of state on the same side, at least on the question of the photo’s credibility, an alignment that is rarely seen.

What exactly is the president claiming?

Vucic framed his message as a defense against a media campaign. According to him, headlines linking him to Belivuk are not meant to inform the public but have a clear aim, to portray him as part of a criminal milieu. He used the words dehumanization and criminalization, arguing that this is a pattern repeated day after day. In the same address, the president also admitted he may have been harsh toward an N1 reporter the day before, a rare concession given the tone he usually keeps toward that part of the media scene.

N1, for its part, stands behind its trial coverage. The outlet published the photograph in the context of the court proceedings, and the headline tying the president to the supporters’ group became the trigger for escalation. The dispute is thus running on two tracks at once. One is the legal question of whether the image is authentic or doctored, which the defense insists on. The other is the political and media conflict over who places such content, how, and with what intent.

Veljko Belivuk is charged with the most serious criminal offenses in the trial of an organized crime group, a case that has gripped Serbian public attention for years. That is precisely why any mention of his name in the same sentence as the president carries particular weight, and it is on that weight that Vucic draws when he speaks of an intent to associate him with crime.

Where does reporting end and fabrication begin?

The core question that remains open concerns the photograph itself. If the image is authentic, then it is legitimate trial coverage the public has a right to see. If, as both the defense and the president claim, it is a fabrication, then a serious question of responsibility arises for whoever circulates such content. For now there is no independent finding to settle the dilemma, so both sides hold to their positions.

The political context sharpens the tone further. The dispute is unfolding in the days surrounding a rally announced for June 27, with rhetoric between the authorities and parts of the media hardening by the day. The question of one photograph’s credibility thus grows into a broader struggle over who holds a monopoly on truth in the public space, and how thin the line is between reporting and a campaign.

Do you think an independent forensic check of the photograph would be a way to end this dispute, or will interpretation remain split along political lines regardless of the finding?