The published documents contain no incriminating facts against the woman from Bosnia and Herzegovina who is mentioned, nor are they in the public interest

photo: Wesley Tingey / Unsplash

When an event becomes known internationally in which a person of Bosnian and Herzegovinian origin is one of the main actors, media outlets in Bosnia and Herzegovina often rush to publish the news. Such individuals are frequently highlighted in the media when they have achieved a certain level of success while living abroad. However, the names and personal details of people from this region are most interesting to Bosnian portals when they fall under crime reporting or show business.

Journalists in Bosnia and Herzegovina also find it appealing to publish incomplete information about individuals of Bosnian origin, as is evident from a review of portals that reported on a woman of Bosnian origin who was, in such reporting, linked to a case from the United States involving sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Her name did appear on the website of the U.S. Department of Justice, in a section containing materials released in accordance with the Epstein Files Transparency Act, but this does not place her in any potential criminal connection with Epstein.

In November of last year, the U.S. Congress adopted the aforementioned law and required the Department of Justice to disclose as much information as possible from investigations into Epstein and his network so that the public could access the documents. The law obliged the Department of Justice to publish all materials related to the Epstein investigation by a set deadline and enabled public access to these files.

The Department of Justice has begun releasing the materials, which relate to the discontinued investigation in Florida, investigations conducted in Manhattan, as well as all other Department of Justice activities connected to examining Epstein's dealings in the interim. These materials may include notes and reports written by FBI agents, transcripts of witness interviews, photographs, videos, Epstein's autopsy report, and other evidence, as well as materials that may already be public, such as flight logs and travel records.

Who was Jeffrey Epstein?

Jeffrey Epstein died by suicide in a New York jail cell on August 10, 2019, one month after a federal indictment was filed against him on charges of sex trafficking. He was a millionaire and financial manager, known for socializing with celebrities, politicians, billionaires, and members of the academic elite. His relationships with powerful men were also the subject of public interest and widespread speculation.

Police in Palm Beach, Florida, began investigating Epstein in 2005 after he was accused of paying a 14-year-old girl for sex. The FBI later joined the investigation, but Epstein reached a secret agreement with a U.S. prosecutor in Florida that allowed him to avoid federal charges. As a result, in 2008, he pleaded guilty to a relatively minor state-level prostitution charge. He served his sentence by spending 13 months in a work-release program.

In 2019, federal prosecutors in Manhattan reopened the case and charged Epstein with sex trafficking, alleging that he sexually abused dozens of girls. One month after his arrest, he died by suicide.

In 2021, a federal jury in Manhattan convicted Epstein's long-time associate and former partner Ghislaine Maxwell of sex trafficking and of helping recruit some of his minor victims. She is currently serving a 20-year prison sentence.

The fight for clicks and sensationalism

It is clear that Epstein and all of his crimes are in the public interest, given the scope of the indictment and the importance of addressing sexual abuse of girls and the abuse of power. However, it is unclear why highlighting the full name of a woman of Bosnian origin is in the public interest in Bosnia and Herzegovina, since the documents in question contain no accusations against her and do not state that she participated in any illegal activities.

Some portals even explicitly noted this in their articles, stating that the released Epstein files do not conclude her responsibility, but that “her name and communications remain part of extensive documentation related to one of the most controversial and darkest affairs in contemporary American history, the scope of which is still being uncovered”. Through such reporting, without presenting evidence against her, media outlets risk unjustifiably damaging her reputation.

“Bosnian woman originally from Olovo in the Epstein files”, “Who is the Bosnian woman mentioned in the Epstein files”, “Prominent Bosnian woman originally from Olovo in the Epstein files: 'Dear Jeffrey, I am sending you photos of some of the girls'”... are just some of the headlines published by Bosnian portals.

Continuing the trend of the fight for clicks, portals competed over who would publish the most sensational headline, often copying information from other outlets. They also emphasized her full name and hometown in Bosnia and Herzegovina, without explaining the circumstances of the case itself, which may lead the public to draw incorrect conclusions.

Analyzing such reporting, one gains the impression that some portals exploited the fact that a person of Bosnian origin is mentioned in the documents in order to attract the attention of the domestic audience through a global scandal, while neglecting the ethical consequences of such an approach.

Editors once again failed to consider how this kind of public exposure could affect the woman and her family, thereby violating several articles of the Code of the Press Council and Online Media of Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as basic journalistic ethics.

Article 15 of the Code, which stipulates that “public curiosity must not be a reason for publishing media content that violates someone's privacy,” was once again overlooked by journalists and editors.

“Journalists and editors shall report only based on facts whose accuracy and truthfulness they have verified by making a legitimate effort to contact more than one source”, states Article 7 of the Code, which journalists also failed to observe.

In addition, it is unclear why such information would be in the public interest at all, given that “working in the public interest includes efforts by print and online media to uncover criminal acts and/or misconduct, as well as to prevent misleading individuals and the public”. In this case, based on the portions of email correspondence related to the woman from Bosnia and Herzegovina, no illegal activity can be concluded, thereby misleading the public.

Reaction to the reporting: Smearing the woman’s name

After information emerged that her name appeared in the Epstein files, one Bosnian portal contacted her, allowing her side of the story to be heard. As she stated, her name appears “exclusively in the context of her professional activities from more than ten years ago”.

“This mention does not constitute an accusation nor does it indicate any illegal, inappropriate, or ethically questionable conduct on my part. During that period, I worked as a PR and project manager, collaborated with the reputable Swedish American Life Science Summit conference, and with a foundation that awards scholarships to young female scientists within the Stockholm School of Economics. In that capacity, I was involved in organizing international conferences and professional events in the field of scientific and academic cooperation between Sweden and the United States”, she said.

This makes it clear that this, and other portals, could have contacted her before publishing the initial information with sensationalist headlines and incomplete reporting, instead of publicly targeting her. They could also have chosen to consult a legal expert to comment on the case and the documents published under the Epstein Files Transparency Act.

Edhem Čustović, an engineer of Bosnian origin who lives between Australia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, issued a response to the media reporting about her. In a Facebook post, which we share with his permission, he warned about the smearing of her name.

“Being 'mentioned' in documents is not the same as being accused or compromised. The Epstein document archive contains millions of pages. The names of many people appear solely because they worked in academia, biotechnology, finance, or philanthropy; because they organized meetings, conferences, or travel; or because they had professional contact with Epstein at a time when his criminal acts were not yet publicly known”, Čustović wrote, among other things.

In the articles dealing with her name, he added, “nowhere is it explicitly stated that she has been accused of any criminal offense, but through the writing style, the order of information, and selective quoting, the reader is led to draw such a conclusion on their own”.

“That is not a stylistic error; it is a serious professional failure and an example of journalistic irresponsibility”, Čustović concluded.

He also emphasized that what is deliberately omitted in these articles is particularly problematic. As he noted, it is not explained that Epstein was for years a significant financier of scientific projects and maintained professional contacts with hundreds of scientists, entrepreneurs, and institutions worldwide. Nor is it mentioned that many of these interactions occurred years before his crimes became publicly known.

It is important to note that sensationalist reporting is not limited to the media in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Some American media outlets have also presented the released Department of Justice documents by emphasizing that they contain “many well-known names”, without citing proven criminal responsibility.