The first time Emilija Marinković stood up for her rights, she was a preschooler. Equipped with nothing more than a kindergarten lesson about the child’s right to play, she faced her parents with unwavering seriousness: homework could wait- her rights could not. Many years later, she laughs at the memory, but it still reminds her why knowing your rights matters.

Fifteen years after the Youth Advisory Panel of the Protector of Citizens was created, Emilija stands as one of the many young people who embody what the Panel set out to achieve. Over the years, hundreds of children and adolescents have lent their voices, ideas, and experiences to help institutions better understand and protect the rights of young people. The Panel, supported through the action “Combating discrimination and promoting diversity in Serbia” under the joint programme of the European Union and the Council of Europe “Horizontal Facility for the Western Balkans and Türkiye,” has become a space where youth perspectives genuinely inform change.

For Emilija, its impact cannot be summed up in a single moment. Her memories are not of milestones but of conversations, trainings, consultations, friendships, and the growing feeling that her voice mattered not only to her peers, but to the very institution tasked with protecting young people’s rights. “All the conversations, trainings and consultations are what shaped my entire experience in the Panel,” she says. “Every acquaintance, every piece of knowledge gained, every opportunity for my voice to be heard contributed to my personal intellectual development.”

Through the Panel, she discovered skills she didn’t know she possessed. Public speaking that once felt intimidating became a source of strength. Working in teams taught her to listen and lead. Step by step, she gained confidence, understanding that knowledge is not abstract: it opens doors, creates opportunities, reveals new paths forward. She values most that the Panel gives young people a space where open communication- honest feedback, criticism, praise, questions, is welcomed. “The whole point of being a panelist is to speak up, not to be afraid, and to have the courage to express your observations, your criticism and your praise,” she says. “Only through open communication can we function and achieve visible results.”

This understanding became crucial when she began to recognise forms of discrimination and violence she would once have missed. “There were many forms of violence and discrimination that I didn’t know how to recognise before the training,” she says. “And that’s where the main task of the panelists comes in- raising awareness.” That knowledge moved from theory to reality one day when a classmate at her school experienced psychological violence from a teacher. No one acknowledged it. No one intervened. But Emilija looked again and realised she had a responsibility as a witness, as a peer,  as a member of the student parliament, as part of the school’s violence-prevention team, and as a youth panelist. “I took the matter into my own hands and resolved the situation in an appropriate way with the help of the knowledge I had gained,” she recalls. “That was the moment I actually moved from theory into practice.”

As the Youth Advisory Panel marks its 15th anniversary, stories like Emilija’s show what the initiative has been able to achieve: empowered young people who recognise discrimination, respond to injustice, and use their voice with confidence. It is proof that investing in youth participation is not symbolic, it reshapes lives, strengthens communities, and builds a culture of rights that grows stronger with every generation. And contributes to block the hatred in our societies.

When asked about her future, Emilija starts with a simple truth: she wants to remain, above all, a good human being. “I want to work in the field of rights and use my full potential in that area,” she says. “I have big ambitions and believe in myself, and I want to pass that belief on to someone who might need that final push to reach their goal and achieve their dreams.”

“We cannot say that we are close to a point where the media promote gender equality, avoid stereotypes, and empower women and marginalised groups.” With that blunt assessment, journalist Aleksandra Ničić sets the tone for a conversation that goes far beyond individual newsroom habits and speaks to the deeper structures shaping today’s media. As a journalist and member of the Journalists’ Association of Serbia, Ničić is also one of the authors of the newly published Guide for Gender-Sensitive Reporting, a publication born out of the growing gap between ethical standards and what actually happens in newsrooms. Her work sits at the intersection of practice and principle, where good intentions often collide with entrenched habits.

One of the most persistent challenges, she explains, is the lack of women’s visibility in the media, both as subjects of stories and as sources. According to the Global Media Monitoring Report published in 2025, women appear in just 28 percent of media content. “That is a slight improvement compared to 2020, when women accounted for 20 percent of media presence, but it remains a burning issue,” Ničić says. The problem is not only how often women appear, but also how they are portrayed.

“When women are present in the media, they are often represented through stereotypes,” she explains, adding that their voices are usually confined to soft news.

Language is another area where resistance persists. Ničić points out that part of the scientific and professional community continues to react with discomfort, and sometimes even open aversion, to the use of gender-sensitive language. At the same time, she draws attention to an issue that receives far less public scrutiny: the stereotypical portrayal of men and the promotion of toxic masculinity. This model, she explains, places social pressure on men to suppress emotions and assert dominance, which is harmful not only to women but to men themselves.

Taken together, these patterns show how far the media still are from consistently promoting gender equality. “This is not a problem limited to domestic media,” Ničić says, pointing out that the Global Media Monitoring Report highlights similar trends at the global level.

The Guide for Gender-Sensitive Reporting was created for young journalists precisely to address this gap between ethical standards and journalistic practice. Ničić describes gender-sensitive reporting as ethical and non-stereotypical journalism that applies equally to stories about gender roles, violence against women, and women’s political participation. “We wanted to present all the elements that this type of reporting includes in a clear and comprehensive way,” she explains.

The guide brings together the European regulatory framework, domestic legislation, ethical guidelines, and theoretical perspectives, supported by current examples from media practice. “In that way, young journalists have the opportunity to become familiar with the professional rules in this area in one place,” Ničić says. As a practical tool, the publication also offers concrete recommendations on ethical reporting about victims of violence, the proper use of gender-sensitive language, and the avoidance of stereotypical portrayals of both women and men. These recommendations, she notes, represent a synthesis of existing regulatory and self-regulatory frameworks, as well as theoretical considerations and guidance found in earlier manuals.

Developed through cooperation between the Education Centre of the Journalists’ Association of Serbia and the Council of Europe, the guide was produced under the action Protecting freedom of expression and of the media in Serbia (PROFREX), implemented by the Division for Cooperation on Freedom of Expression within the joint European Union and Council of Europe programme Horizontal Facility for the Western Balkans and Türkiye. Primarily intended as a resource for students of the Association’s Journalism School, the publication aims to strengthen understanding of responsible reporting on gender.

This collaboration has also extended beyond the publication itself. In April 2025, the two partners organised a workshop on gender-sensitive reporting, where journalism students discussed gender stereotypes, relevant European regulatory frameworks, and the importance of breaking the glass ceiling that continues to limit women’s advancement to decision-making positions in the media.

According to Ničić, stereotypes are often easiest to spot in everyday expressions and editorial habits, such as phrases like “the weaker sex,” the unnecessary emphasis on a woman’s marital status, or the neglect and downplaying of women’s achievements. Through the analysis of concrete examples, participants in the workshop were able to recognise patterns they had not previously questioned. This, she believes, is a strong starting point, alongside knowledge of ethical guidelines and a willingness to critically examine one’s own reporting.

There are signs of progress. Ničić notes that many young journalists show a genuine desire to respect ethical and professional standards, promote gender equality, and avoid stereotypes. At the same time, the fact that significantly more women than men took part in the workshop suggests that this issue still needs to be more actively addressed among male journalists. “A society in which women and men are equal is better for men as well,” she says, adding that the same logic applies to the media landscape.

Ultimately, however, individual commitment cannot compensate for the absence of supportive editorial policies. If editors believe that gender-sensitive language should be avoided, such practices will prevail regardless of ethical norms. Editorial decisions shape which topics are covered, who is invited to speak, and how different social groups are portrayed. It is equally important, Ničić stresses, that women are not discriminated against in editorial positions.

This is where the discussion inevitably returns to the glass ceiling. Although women numerically dominate many newsrooms, research shows that they are still rarely found in positions such as editor-in-chief. Any serious conversation about gender equality in the media, Ničić concludes, must therefore look beyond content alone and address the power structures that ultimately determine what reaches the public.