It is taken to be axiomatic that the hostility, particularly among the mainstream media, toward Novak Djokovic has nothing to do with politics and definitely nothing to do with any animus toward the Serbs. I have never been persuaded by this. The coldness, bordering on mean-spiritedness, with which some fans, but especially the media, responded to an accomplished athlete who racked up extraordinary achievements during the past 10 years or so, seemed inexplicable otherwise.

The current vaccination standoff between the Australian government and Djokovic has brought to the fore the real reasons for the media's hostility, reasons that the media have sought to keep hidden from view. However, with the emergence of the Covid issue, the media no longer feel the need to pretend to be non-political in their attitude to Djokovic, to be exclusively concerned with the well-being of tennis.

The New York Times has just published a lengthy hatchet job on Djokovic. After meandering at some length about Djokovic's propensity to take advocate on behalf of some bizarre New Age theories from someone the Times labels a "quack," the paper finally gets to the real issue: Djokovic's politics. (One should say right away that while it's perfectly reasonable to dismiss New Age psychobabble about physical and mental well-being, what Djokovic--one of the fittest men on the planet--has to say on the subject of health should be of interest to anyone.) We learn from the Times that Djokovic has all along been a "Serb nationalist."

We are told that:

"Djokovic has made comments over the years that suggested he was at least sympathetic to Serbian nationalism. In a speech in 2008, he said that Kosovo belonged to Serbia after it declared independence. "

We also learn that Djokovic has some sympathy for the worst people of all--worse even than the Russians--the Serbs of Bosnia-Herzegovina:

"The Djokovic flap has come at a time of resurgent Serbian nationalism in Bosnia, and it has also revived interest in Djokovic’s political views. On a visit to Bosnia last September, he was photographed with the former commander of a paramilitary group that was implicated in the 1995 Srebrenica massacre. He was also videotaped singing at a wedding with Milorad Dodik, the hard-line Serbian nationalist whose separatist rhetoric is raising fears that Bosnia might again fall into conflict."

This of course is a classic of the "guilt by association" genre journalism that the New York Times specializes in. Djokovic sits next to a person who has been convicted of nothing and has not been "implicated" in any "Srebrenica massacre." And he sings at the wedding of Milorad Dodik, former president of Republika Srpska and currently its representative at the tripartite presidency of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Dodik, after receiving the dismissive sobriquet "hardline Serbian nationalist," is assigned sole responsibility for Bosnia's possible "fall into conflict." This of course is par for the course. Anything that goes wrong at the U.S.com/E.U. pet project of Bosnia-Herzegovina is always the fault of the Serbs.

The most revealing part of this hack piece comes when the Times tries to put in a favorable word for Djokovic:

"People around Djokovic believe that he is not as popular as Federer and Nadal in part because he comes from a small country with a bad reputation. But that’s not necessarily an expression of Serbian nationalism, and there’s likely some truth to it."

This makes very little sense. Not surprisingly. Times writers are by now so blinded by their ideologically-driven hatreds that they are no longer capable of writing coherently. What the Times, I think, is saying is that Djokovic's lack of popularity with tennis fans is because of Serbia's "bad reputation." So, Djokovic may not be as bad as he seems to be; it's just that the guy has the misfortune to be born a Serb. Needless to say, the Times, which has demonized the Serbs for more than 30 years, has played no role in giving that nation a "bad reputation."

The Times then consults "Bosnian-American writer Aleksandar Hemon," according to whom, Djokovic's "world-conquering success has made him a mythological figure in Serbian culture, the embodiment of Serbian greatness who has landed a crushing blow against the enemies of his country."

Ah yes, it won't be long before we get to the Serbs' famous "victim complex." It always makes an appearance whenever Big Think media get on to the topic of the Serbs. Sure enough, here it is:

"And likewise, the Djokovic controversy in Australia has played into the sense of victimhood that animates Serbian nationalism — a belief that 'the West hates him because he’s a Serb,' as Hemon put it."

The "Serb victimhood" cliche is just a case of projection. You accuse someone else of precisely your own most distinctive shortcoming. Recall that it was the enemies of the Serbs--the Slovenes, the Croats, the Bosnian Muslims, the Kosovo Albanians--who waged a highly successful, lavishly-funded PR campaign in the Western media that presented themselves as "victims" of the horrible Serbs. Recall, also, that it was Milošević, who in a 1999 interview with a U.S. media outlet declared that Serbs were neither angels nor devils. It was the kind of commonsensical observation that none of the representatives of the other protagonists would have made. Their side was made up exclusively of angels or victims.

The Times concludes with satisfaction:

"Whether it was miscalculation, arrogance or some combination of the two that led Djokovic to think he could show up in Melbourne unvaccinated and just play, he now finds himself isolated in the tennis world."

This of course is falsehood typical of the Times. Djokovic didn't just "show up." He had been granted a visa and an exemption. It was the Australian authorities who went back on their word. Why they did so is a very interesting question. Would they have treated Rafael Nadal or Roger Federer in the same fashion?

In any case, Djokovic is not "isolated in the tennis world." A number of tennis players have spoken up for him, including Alexander Zverev, the world's No. 3 player. But then, fealty to truth and fairness is not exactly the Times's strong suit.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/15/sports/novak-djokovic-australian-open.html