EURONEWS I BEMS: OD METODOLOGIJE DO META-DISKURSA PODSMEHA/EURONEWS AND BEMS: FROM METHODOLOGY TO A META-DISCOURSE OF MOCKERY

Na osnovu dostavljenih materijala, sprovedena je objedinjena analiza (GTP, Deep Seek i Genimi) odnosa televizije Euronews Srbija prema BEMS (BIRODI Media Score) metodologiji, sa fokusom na period od 21. marta do 25. aprila 2026. godine. Nalazi pokazuju jasan i stabilan obrazac u kojem se jedan istraživački alat transformiše iz metodološkog instrumenta u predmet medijske delegitimizacije. Ovaj obrazac nije incidentan, već se ponavlja kroz više emisija, pre svega u okviru programa „Teška priča“.
Osnovni nalaz analize jeste da Euronews ne tretira BEMS kao metodologiju javnog interesa, već kao objekat simboličke degradacije, satire i personalizacije. Umesto da se publici ponudi objašnjenje šta BEMS jeste, kako funkcioniše i koje rezultate proizvodi, ovaj alat se koristi kao povod za humor, ironiju i diskreditaciju. Dominantan ton u analiziranom sadržaju je negativan i podsmešljiv u oko 90% slučajeva, dok pozitivan ton uopšte nije zabeležen, a neutralni pristup je sporadičan i bez značajne informativne vrednosti.
Jedan od ključnih elemenata ovog diskursa jeste konstrukcija BEMS-a kao „fantomske alatke“. Kroz emisije se plasiraju narativi koji sugerišu da BEMS nema ozbiljno metodološko utemeljenje, već da je reč o proizvoljnoj ili „domaćoj“ konstrukciji. Ovakav pristup dodatno je pojačan jezičkim ismevanjem samog naziva i njegovih komponenti, čime se ne kritikuje konkretna metodologija, već se podriva sama ideja stručnosti i analize.
Centralni mehanizam kroz koji se ova strategija realizuje jeste personalizacija. BEMS se gotovo u potpunosti vezuje za Zorana Gavrilovića, čime se briše institucionalni karakter BIRODI-ja i metodologija se svodi na lični projekat. Time se pažnja javnosti premešta sa analize medijskog sadržaja na ličnost autora, što je u suprotnosti sa profesionalnim standardima izveštavanja i javne rasprave.
Pored personalizacije, prisutna je i snažna ironizacija same ideje medijskog monitoringa. Kroz narative koji BEMS predstavljaju kao „aparat“ ili alat koji meri „drhtanje glasa“, dovodi se u pitanje mogućnost objektivnog merenja medijskog sadržaja. Ovakav diskurs ne predstavlja argumentovanu kritiku, već delegitimizaciju čitave oblasti medijske analize.
Posebno je značajno to što se humor koristi kao dominantni narativni okvir. On nije dodatni element, već osnovni mehanizam kroz koji se oblikuje percepcija publike. Kroz ponavljanje šala i karikatura, BEMS se sistematski predstavlja kao nešto neozbiljno, čime se delegitimizacija normalizuje i postaje deo očekivanog medijskog ponašanja.
Analiza takođe pokazuje da u programu Euronews izostaje osnovni princip uravnoteženog izveštavanja. Ne postoji pokušaj da se predstavi druga strana, odnosno metodologija, indikatori ili nalazi BEMS-a, niti su uključeni predstavnici BIRODI-ja. Time se dodatno smanjuje informativna vrednost sadržaja i onemogućava publici da formira stav zasnovan na činjenicama.
Vremenska dinamika dodatno potvrđuje sistemski karakter ovog obrasca. Najveća koncentracija pominjanja BEMS-a zabeležena je 21. marta 2026. godine, kada ova tema postaje centralni motiv emisije. Međutim, ni tada ne dolazi do analitičke rasprave, već do intenziviranja podsmeha i personalizacije. U kasnijim emisijama isti obrasci se ponavljaju sa manjim intenzitetom, što ukazuje na stabilnost diskursa.
Primena BEMS metodologije na način na koji Euronews izveštava o BEMS-u pokazuje nizak nivo informativnosti, argumentovanosti i profesionalnog tona, uz istovremeno visok nivo personalizacije i etiketiranja. Ovakav profil sadržaja odgovara propagandno-polemijskom, a ne analitičkom tipu medijskog diskursa, sa kompozitnom ocenom integriteta od približno 35 od 100.
Objedinjeni nalaz ove analize može se konceptualizovati kao metamedijska delegitimizacija. U ovom slučaju, medij ne osporava rezultate ili metodologiju istraživanja kroz argumente, već pokušava da ospori legitimitet onoga ko istraživanje sprovodi. Ovaj proces uključuje premeštanje fokusa sa sadržaja na autora, zamenu argumentacije podsmehom i transformaciju analize u performativni diskurs.
Implikacije ovakvog pristupa prevazilaze pojedinačni slučaj BEMS-a. One ukazuju na širi problem odnosa medija prema mehanizmima njihove evaluacije. Kada se istraživački alati delegitimišu bez argumentacije, smanjuje se prostor za ozbiljnu raspravu o kvalitetu medijskog izveštavanja i odgovornosti medija u javnom prostoru.
Zaključno, Euronews u analiziranom periodu ne tretira BEMS kao metodologiju od javnog interesa, već kao predmet podsmeha i personalne diskreditacije. Time se izbegava suštinska rasprava o standardima profesionalnog izveštavanja, a javni prostor se pomera od argumentovanog dijaloga ka diskurzivnom performansu. Ključni nalaz ove analize nije da je BEMS osporen, već da je sistematski ismejan, čime je onemogućena svaka ozbiljna debata o njegovim nalazima i ulozi u evaluaciji medija.

EURONEWS AND BEMS: FROM METHODOLOGY TO A META-DISCOURSE OF MOCKERY

Based on the provided materials, an integrated analysis (GTP, Deep Seek i Genimi) was conducted of the relationship between Euronews Serbia and the BEMS (BIRODI Media Score) methodology, focusing on the period from March 21 to April 25, 2026. The findings reveal a clear and consistent pattern in which a research tool is transformed from a methodological instrument into an object of media delegitimization. This pattern is not incidental, but repeated across multiple broadcasts, primarily within the program “Teška priča.”
The core finding of the analysis is that Euronews does not treat BEMS as a methodology of public interest, but rather as an object of symbolic degradation, satire, and personalization. Instead of informing the audience about what BEMS is, how it functions, and what results it produces, the tool is used as a trigger for humor, irony, and discreditation. The dominant tone in the analyzed content is negative and mocking in approximately 90% of cases, with no positive tone recorded and only marginal, low-informational neutral references.
One of the key elements of this discourse is the construction of BEMS as a “phantom tool.” Through various segments, narratives are promoted suggesting that BEMS lacks serious methodological grounding, portraying it as arbitrary or improvised. This is reinforced through linguistic mockery of the acronym itself, which does not constitute a critique of the methodology, but rather an attempt to undermine the very idea of expertise and analytical rigor.
A central mechanism in this strategy is personalization. BEMS is almost entirely associated with Zoran Gavrilović, effectively erasing its institutional grounding within BIRODI and reducing it to a personal project. This shifts public attention from the analysis of media content to the individual behind it, which contradicts fundamental standards of professional reporting and public discourse.
In addition to personalization, there is a strong presence of irony directed at the very idea of media monitoring. Through narratives that depict BEMS as a “device” or as a tool that measures “voice trembling,” the possibility of objective media analysis is called into question. This type of discourse does not represent a reasoned critique, but rather a broader delegitimization of the field of media analysis itself.
Particularly significant is the role of humor as the dominant narrative framework. It is not a secondary element, but the primary mechanism shaping audience perception. Through repeated jokes and caricatures, BEMS is systematically presented as something unserious, thereby normalizing its delegitimization and embedding it within accepted media practice.
The analysis also shows that Euronews fails to meet the basic principle of balanced reporting. There is no attempt to present the other side—that is, the methodology, indicators, or findings of BEMS—nor are BIRODI representatives included. This further reduces the informational value of the content and prevents the audience from forming an evidence-based opinion.
The temporal dynamics reinforce the systemic nature of this pattern. The highest concentration of BEMS mentions occurred on March 21, 2026, when the topic became central to the broadcast. However, even at that peak, no analytical discussion took place—only intensified mockery and personalization. In subsequent broadcasts, the same patterns persisted with lower intensity, indicating a stabilized discourse.
Applying the BEMS methodology to Euronews’ own coverage of BEMS reveals low levels of informativeness, argumentation, and professional tone, alongside high levels of personalization and labeling. This profile aligns with a propagandistic-polemical rather than analytical type of media discourse, with a composite integrity score of approximately 35 out of 100.
The integrated finding of this analysis can be conceptualized as meta-media delegitimization. In this case, the media outlet does not challenge research results or methodology through arguments, but instead seeks to undermine the legitimacy of the entity producing them. This process involves shifting the focus from content to the author, replacing argumentation with mockery, and transforming analysis into performative discourse.
The implications of this approach extend beyond the specific case of BEMS. They point to a broader issue in the relationship between media and mechanisms of their evaluation. When research tools are delegitimized without argument, the space for serious debate about media quality and accountability is significantly reduced.
In conclusion, Euronews, during the analyzed period, does not treat BEMS as a methodology of public interest, but as an object of mockery and personal discreditation. This approach avoids substantive discussion on standards of professional reporting and shifts public discourse from argument-based debate toward performative communication. The key finding is not that BEMS has been critically challenged, but that it has been systematically ridiculed, thereby eliminating the possibility of meaningful discussion about its findings and its role in media evaluation.