Under the pretext of protecting public health, the state fought against disinformation about the pandemic for the past three months by protecting the Government's interests, not taking into account the consequences for the democratic values of society, concluded the Center for Democratic Transition (CDT) in the analysis "The network of disinformation and inadequate state response ".
Analyzing the issue of the spread of disinformation in the previous 100 days, the CDT, as in the last analysis, found that the key media in Montenegro "passed the test".
Tabloids and media from the "margin", mainly regional and In4S, worked in the opposite way, as they state. On the one hand, they were filters for channeling disinformation into the media space, but also their creators, and "the key direction of their "work" is the creation of false narratives that favor Russia and China over the EU and NATO."
According to CDT's findings, these are primarily media from Serbia, such as "Informer", "Sputnjik", "Alo"... Social networks were also a big problem, which, as stated in the analysis published on CDT's website, were support for disinformers and their mentors.
"The characteristic of this channel is the absence of almost no responsibility for what is published... Significant damage in this field was caused by politicians, athletes, musicians, actors, media owners and even the presidents of some countries who overnight became "experts" in the treatment of covid -19... When the spread of disinformation did not go well through the media and/or social networks, on several occasions the channel of dissemination was opened via SMS, Viber, Vacap and other platforms", states the CDT.
Instead of an essential solution to this problem, which the CDT suggested to state authorities months ago, the government opted for repression.
"The institutions belonging to the repressive apparatus (police and prosecutor's office) went a step further and made an even bigger mistake in relation to the Government and decided to arrest individuals on charges of spreading panic and spreading fake news. An additional problem is that they did not treat all the creators and transmitters of fake news in the same way," it said.
The CDT concludes that "unlike the pandemic, the reaction of state authorities to the infodemic was expected":
"It was important that, under the pretext of protecting public health, the Government's interests were protected, regardless of the consequences for the democratic values of society, i.e. freedom of expression, the environment in which the media work, selectivity in the application of repressive measures or the suppression of critical thought," the analysis states. .
CDT previously indicated the need for a strategic approach to the issue of disinformation, and this time they came up with concrete proposals.
They propose adapting the Criminal Code and media laws to counter disinformation like Scandinavian countries and Germany, introducing the fight against fake news into electoral legislation, establishing a fund to support the media to fight against fake news - as in the case of Great Britain.
The government played a role of self-regulator and thereby invited prosecutors to react to political criticism
"The government, together with other parts of the executive power, continued in this period with the ambition to expand its constitutional powers to include evaluations of compliance with the journalistic code. Thus, the unusual research role of the Government continued - it is the one that "discovers" fake news. Instead of denials, in some cases, the media received labels that could be interpreted as an attempt to have an illegal influence on their work. The government seemed to like this, so it transferred the label "fake news" to the political arena and stuck it on political criticism of its activities. Without going into the justification or accuracy of the criticism, this is really a red light: a label from the Government, instead of a denial, means a call to the prosecutor's office to react, and thus a call to react against political criticism", says the CDT.
They recall the publication of the list of persons in mandatory self-isolation, which, as they recall, violated the constitutional right to privacy.
"Parallel with the publication of this list, an "extended" list began to circulate, which, in addition to the basic ones, also contained personal data of citizens. Neither the Government nor the prosecution explained to the public how this list ended up in circulation, and whether anyone will be held responsible for it," the report says.
Bonus video:
