A decree issued by the Ministry of Health of North Macedonia on July 6, 2025 triggered a debate at the national level on the freedom of the press, censorship, and the correct position of state communication in the crisis. The order was in response to an emergency at a sports and health center that was diagrammed by the government of Skopje, known as the accident at the “Pulse”, injuring several individuals, and the result of extensive media attention.
On the basis of avoiding panic and misreporting, the Ministry provided official guidelines to journalists on the manner in which injuries were to be covered, which amounted to controlling the tone, language and content of the reports. This move was directly denounced by the Association of Journalists of Macedonia (AJM) that contested the directive as outright illegal in the form of censorship, and unduly exceeded its mandate into editorial freedom.
The situation exposed the conflict between the need to engage in crisis communication and the freedom of the press, and whether the order was a safeguard, or a dangerous precedent.
Legal and constitutional frameworks
Guarantees of press freedom under national law
Article 33 of North Macedonia Constitution gives some of the best guarantees to freedom of expression in Western Balkans. Article 16 also provides the freedom of the public access to information and censorship will be strictly banned. Such assurances are strengthened with sector-oriented acts, such as the Law on Media and the Law on Audio and Audiovisual Media Services.
Changes to the criminal code that came into effect in 2022 defined restricting or censoring journalists as a punishable act. Those convicted of hampering media freedoms also receive a punishment in terms of fines and even in jail time. These were reforms that aimed at avoiding such state intervention as what is claimed to have occurred in the Pulse case.
International alignment and reform trajectory
Conformity to international media standards has been the pivot of the accession course to the EU by North Macedonia. Both the European Commission and the council of Europe have commended the efforts with regards to taking up media friendly legal reforms. It is the European Media Freedom Act that can be used as a regulatory guide to the development of North Macedonia and, most importantly, the aspect of media independence and media pluralism.
However, the nation dropped two positions to the 42 nd position in the 2025 World Press Freedom Index, owing mainly to the deep engagement on issues concerning political influence, media ownership concentration, and failures on part of regulatory independence. The directive of the Ministry of Health in this light is only one of the instances in a wider trend of hostilities between the state and the slowly waking up media.
Institutional reactions and self-regulation models
Journalistic associations and civil society
The AJM’s response was swift and pointed. The group stated,
“This directive is a serious violation of the Constitution and journalistic independence. Public authorities must not direct or restrict media content.”
This view was echoed by the Council of Media Ethics of Macedonia (CMEM), which emphasized that journalists already operate under a strict code of ethics that discourages sensationalism and ensures accuracy in reporting on sensitive issues.
Civil society watchdogs noted that directives of this kind risk producing a chilling effect, especially in a region where past political regimes used state communication as a tool of narrative control. The danger, they argued, lies in normalizing government interference in editorial judgment.
State institutions and the health ministry
The Ministry of Health defended its action by invoking public safety. Officials claimed the directive was not mandatory but intended as guidance during a volatile moment when misinformation could have endangered lives. Yet the tone and structure of the directive, which reportedly included prescriptive language and format templates, suggested otherwise.
North Macedonia’s media regulator, the Agency for Audio and Audiovisual Media Services (AVMS), did not endorse the directive. Its silence, however, has raised questions about its capacity or willingness to challenge state ministries, especially amid concerns about the erosion of its independence following the 2024 legal reforms that altered its appointment procedures.
Balancing communication needs and editorial independence
The role of emergency communication
The pressure on the government ministries is huge and unquestionable in the case of emergencies. Essentiality of timely, clear and accurate information comes. Pandemic or even accidents are all public health problems that can quickly turn into a confusion situation unless proper protocols are put in place regarding communication.
Nevertheless, being the guidelines do not mean that they are mandates as experts have observed. The scholars of the media policy note that communication issued by any state to journalists should be advisory and non-binding. Otherwise the danger of apparent censorship is increased, whether there is any really intended or not.
The case for collaborative models
A number of member states in the EU have implemented multi-stakeholder frameworks of crisis communication. These include formulations of mutual protocols between government institutions, media councils and civil society associations. These models are transparent and promote confidence of the people without violating the autonomy of journalists.
North Macedonia has been interested in the like with its inclusion in the Council of Europe Platform on the Protection of Journalism and in its National Committee on Media Freedom in 2025. Nevertheless, the Pulse act exposed insufficiency in coordination activities institutionally and the need to institutionalize these structures.
Broader pressures on the media ecosystem
Structural and financial challenges
Reporters in North Macedonia meet severe challenges in their activities. Low wages and weak financial models in advertising in combination with small advertising markets renders many outlets susceptible to political or commercial pressure. Even the public broadcasters are usually under quality in financing and the private media have been so much dependent on state advertisement which does not have a standardized basis of allocation.
Such dynamics pose a dangerous situation where the editorial independence can easily be undermined. Not involving any formal censorship, the economic bandwagon causes economic pressures on featuring self-repression and sparing reporting, particularly on politically sensitive issues such as those associated with state health or mismanagement.
Threats, harassment, and the safety of journalists
Journalistic safety is also a big concern. As per the findings of AJM, more than 20 cases of threats or harassment towards reporters have been recorded in the first half of 2025, on their own. There exists legal protection but enforcement is irregular and in many cases the cases have not been settled.
Initiatives such as the campaign called “Journalists Matter”, or new training programs used by law enforcement services reveal the rising awareness of the issue. However, these initiatives remain elusive without institutionalization and monitoring, hence the journalists will remain in the atmosphere of danger and ambiguity.
The politics of perception and the road to 2025 elections
The scenario of the near autumn 2025 local election is a big point in the discourse. The law on media control is already under an examination, access to information, and political messaging is already questioned by the opposition factions as they accuse the authorities of administrative deficiency and media biases.
Such instructions as the one given by the Ministry of Health, despite being possibly aimed at crisis management, contribute to already established fears of the control of narratives. This is not a welcome disaster to a government that had laboured hard to present itself with the face of reform and democratic consolidation.
It is now a matter of current debate on whether the directive was merely a mistake in communication or an acute issue of institutional overreaching.
A pivotal moment for media freedom in North Macedonia
The Pulse incident could prove to be more than a single flashpoint—it may become a defining test for North Macedonia’s media integrity. The controversy has surfaced core questions: Can the state guide without controlling? Can journalists report responsibly without fear of reprisal? And will constitutional protections hold under stress?
Much depends on what happens next. The AJM is said to be gearing up to challenge the directive in legal form. At the same time, the stakeholders are engaged in negotiations to prepare common rules on the state communication in cases of emergency, as there are the best examples of such processes in EU countries such as Slovenia and the Netherlands.
It is not only the professionals in media who have everything to lose but the citizens whose dependability in independent reporting keeps the institutions on their toes. The free and autonomous media of this country might very well be the resilience of its democracy as it goes through electoral struggles and also the road to its accession to the EU.
Upon closer look, the Pulse incident can be recalled as a turning point in case it results in tougher protection, clear communication standards, and renewed dedication to freedom of media. If not, it may become the first in a line of incidents that gradually chip away at the public’s right to know—and the media’s right to inform.