Media, Disinformation, and Fake News

On the eve of the 21st century, a conflict on European soil erupts involving an essential weapon: the media. The instantaneity of modern media played a huge role in spreading propaganda and waging war in the minds of the citizens, in addition to waging it on the ground. A large amount of the public has instant access to it, controlling narratives and thus the masses. The manipulation of the Yugoslav population started with a regional media war.

The Federation of Yugoslavia had a federalised radio diffusion system, but lacked control over regional media, allowing each belligerent to promote their propaganda against other ethnicities within the same country. It was organised to create division and conflict within the general public in order to achieve nationalistic cohesion and justify the need for the war. National rhetoric became omnipresent and any initiative taken by the central government or by local authorities became highly politicised.

Waging a war can only be achieved successfully when the population supports it or gets involved. This is exactly how the political parties used the media to spread their ideology and foster the demonisation of their enemies, emphasising on existing tensions.

Several well-known propaganda techniques were used during the period of the war, such as cognitive dissonance, disinformation, scapegoating and name-calling to create tensions, and the creation of false stereotypes to influence the mind of the public. Nenad Pejić, author of the paper Media’s Responsibility for the War in Former Yugoslavia outlines a personal experience during the war: it demonstrated that educated adults were unable to discern false information from facts. There are countless examples of the media showing corpses and telling the public that they were Serbian victims killed by the Croats before the actual identification of the corpses had even begun.

This analytical failure in the public’s thoughts was partly due to the “CNN effect” which the Balkans suffered from. Immediate information and shocking images made the headlines every day and disappeared the next, without properly displaying facts. Svetlana Slpašak explains in her paper The War Started at Maksimir: Hate Speech in the Media that “no information of any importance had reached the public without comment or interpretation. The public was continuously kept in the state of mental adolescence”. It shocks public opinion and gives no in-depth explanation due to the shortening of attention span. Moreover, the media also used emotion to foster reactions from the public and played on hatred or fear, in the same way as clickbait and fake news do.

How ethnicity was used to justify war to the public

Insofar as there were no federal media, each faction started propagating information according to which side they were on, using ethnical arguments to reach this goal. In Serbian media, the Croats, the Albanians and the Muslims were portrayed as the masterminds of a conspiracy against Serbia, placing the Serbians in the role of the oppressed. On the other hand, Western media, which was mostly anti-Serbian, chose to only publish photos of Bosnian Muslims crying, refugees, and similar scenes. Serbian victims were never portrayed sympathetically, only as an aggressor, trivialising the Bosnian Serb victims of the war.

This trivialisation from both sides led to another consequence. Every individual is no longer an “individual”, but merely one of many in an ethnic group it belonged to, without individual responsibility. As Mr Pejić quoted Slavenk Drakulić: “This is what the war is doing to us – reducing us to one dimension. Before, I thought I was defined by my education, my job, my ideas, my character and -yes- my nationality too. Now I feel stripped of all of that”.

As a consequence of this depersonalisation, some Serbians committing atrocities will commit them in the name of all Serbians and all Serbians will partially bear that responsibility. Reaching this level of association requires important preparation of the messages propagated and reduces the individuals into basic and simple stereotypes, denuded of anything personal to create more hatred. This partly explains the scale of the cleansing. Mass media fuels participation to mass ethnic violence, involving citizens in the fight. A parallel may be drawn between the actions perpetrated in Rwanda and the use of radio to push every citizen to fight. No government is responsible, everybody is: it has become a civil war.

In the years following Tito’s death leading to the breakup of the Federation, all sides started glorifying their past, especially Serbia, which created a past filled with symbols and heroism against the Ottoman invader. The Serbian media called the Bosnian Muslims “Turks” because of their religion and called the Serbian heroes because of their fight against them, generating more violence.

Long-term effects and the current use of media in ex-Yugoslav countries

As much as this series of events belongs to the past, the effects of mass manipulation still have an impact in ex-Yugoslavia. Not only the stereotypes created during the war remain in citizens’ minds, but the media continues to publish such information in each country, showing little interest in peace-building.

Croatia now has an issue with nationalist rhetoric with the revival of a certain nostalgia of the Ustaše regime. There are several reports in the country of ethnic-related violence towards Serbians in public places. Mixed marriages, recurrent before the war, led to family disputes and domestic violence.

Serbia’s media remains the government’s propaganda medium as proven by independent organisations such as Reporters Without Borders. The State remains a strong actor in the media market by attributing funds non-transparently to those who support the government.

Bosnia’s situation remains divided along ethnic lines. The media in the Bosnian Federation supports the Bosnian State and cohabitation, while the media in the Republic Srpska supports the interests of ethnic Serbians.

This article has focused on the Croatian and the Bosnian Wars, but it is notable that anti-Kosovo rhetoric in Serbia remains high, just as there is anti-Serbia rhetoric in Kosovo. Serbia witnesses tenacious ethnic related violence against Kosovars and Albanians. Each media outlet in both Serbia and Kosovo portrays the normalisation talks as a zero-sum game, as if each step was a victory against the enemy. As in every war, propaganda messages are spread to give legitimacy to one side or the other to receive public support from the masses, and Yugoslavia was no exception.

Guest article by Valentin Dantec. This content does not necessarily reflect the official opinion of My Country? Europe. Responsibility for the information and views expressed therein lies entirely with the author. 

The post Propaganda, Media and Fake News During the Yugoslav Wars appeared first on My Country? Europe..

Q: How did you come up with the idea for My Country? Europe?

A: It was the product of many conversations among friends, like many such ideas. It was the period of great turmoil in Ukraine; those protests proved to me, perhaps for the first time, what the EU meant for those who were still not in it, and kindled the same enthusiasm that must have motivated our founding fathers. During the long conversations about the crisis, we thought we could perhaps put our views into some sort of blog – and the page was born. It was always meant as a place where to discuss the dream of a united Europe, foster a sense of kinship, and finally be able to say, “I am European”.

Q: You live in a rather periphereal area of our continent. How has it impacted you, coming face to face with completely different European realities, some of them not in the EU, on a daily basis?

A: It’s the single most impactful element. When I started this project I found myself talking to people from every corner of the continent – and some of them outside of it! Every day I feel privileged: by getting to know these distant places I have grown with the project, and I have seen how diverse and yet united we really are. A person I will never forget is the Serbian girl that has helped us at a critical time for the page. Being pro-Europe in a country that is largely pro-Putin is something that requires pride and bravery, which she has in abundance.

Q: How is the page administered? Do you belong to different nationalities?

A: We don’t have a rigid structure in place. We’re all volunteers who contribute to the project in their spare time. Having said that everyone has a predefined role, or a topic they cover, although they are free to explore and experiment if they wish. As far as the group itself, the core of our founders is Italian, but contributors come from many nationalities: we have Swedes, Swiss people, Italian expats in Scotland, we’ve had the Serbian girl, British guys in the wake of Brexit, Finnish guys. We have never lacked for variety and we hope we never will.

Q: Lately, blaming the EU for pretty much everything under the sun has become a strong trend. What are your aims, considering this environment?

A: Europe is just an easy target, a scapegoat so big and complex that anyone can point the finger and name it the root of all evil, confident that people won’t bother to fact-check. The Brits are a case in point – they’ve been fed easily debunkable lies and myths, and after voting for Leave, the veil has fallen and the lies have been revealed for what they were – Farage’s statement regarding the NHS the morning after the referendum speaks for itself. Our hope is for people to realize what Europe does for them on a daily basis – and maybe ask themselves what they can do for Europe in return.

Q: Your page has also provided detailed coverage of the Brexit referendum, as well as the Turkish golpe, etc. Do you want to provide news as well as cultural information?

A: Yes. I think being informed of what’s happening in several European countries is one of the ways to create a sense of kinship and the idea that Europe is one country. The shooting in Nice killed European citizens. Brexit negates the dream of being part of a united Europe to millions of current European citizens. There is also another element in it: there is a gap between the people and European institutions, and the latter are not really good at marketing themselves and their achievements.

Q: What does Europe mean for your city, Taranto, and for Apulia in general?

A: Taranto and Apulia have interacted with Europe far more than people would think, or than nationalist politicians would like to tell you. The Ilva-gate has seen the keen participation of the EU in defense of our community, oftimes against the express wishes of the Italian government. We don’t realize it but we’re immersed in Europe. You just need to look up: every school, public building, monument, urban re-development project bears a plaque that reminds us the European funds that were invested there, re-developing regions the central government had never really cared about. Europe can be an opportunity for every community if we have the courage to change.

Q: What are your projects for the future? 

A: We’re trying our damnedest to make this project something more than just a Facebook page, but it will take time. It also influenced my personal projects. I have written a book, a political and military thriller, and the same ideas that motivated me to open the page are at its core. It will take time to see whether this book will ever see the light of day, but it might, one day, be my small contribution to Europe.

The post A Country To Dream Of: an interview with Mauro Armadi appeared first on My Country? Europe..