Media Mirror 2011 Media Manipulation and Propaganda

NGO INFO-CENTRE NEW MEDIA CENTRE MEDIA DEVELOPMENT CENTRE

MEDIA MIRROR 2011

MEDIA MANIPULATION AND PROPAGANDA

Skopje, December 2011

The project was supported by Foundation Open Society - Macedonia

MEDIA MIRROR 2011

MEDIA MANIPULATION AND PROPAGANDA

Report on most commonly used methods of manipulation and propaganda techniques by the journalists and the media in Macedonia in several important events that attracted major media interest in 2011

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ...... 3 1. THE CONTEXT ...... 3 2. OVERVIEW OF MOST IMPORTANT MEDIA CASES IN 2011 ...... 7 2.1. The “Martin Neškovski” Case ...... 7 2.2. The Incident at the Debate in Brussels ...... 10 2.3 Lustration Process ...... 14 3. OVERVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF MOST COMMONLY USED METHODS OF MANIPULATION BY THE MEDIA ...... 16 3.1. Authorship and Sources ...... 17 3.2. Defocusing and Generalisation ...... 19 3.3. Framing ...... 19 3.4. Mixing of information with commentaries ...... 21 3.5. False Association ...... 22 3.6. Name Calling (Labelling) ...... 23 3.7. Paralogism ...... 24 3.9. Expert authority ...... 24 4. CONCLUSION ...... 25

INTRODUCTION

The NGO Infocentre, in cooperation with the Media Development Centre and the New Media Centre, financialy supported by Foundation Open Soceity Macedonia (FOSM), prepared a report on several important events that attracted major interest by the media in 2011: The situation in the media and media freedoms in Macedonia; the death of Martin Neškovski, the incident that took place at the debate on the freedom of media in Macedonia, organized by the European Parliament in Brussels; and the process of lustration, i.e. the lustration of Vladimir Milčin, influential civic activist, as the lustration case that received the greatest attention by the public.

In addition to the media coverage of those events, this report provides a general overview of the most commonly used methods of manipulation and propaganda techniques by the journalists and the media in Macedonia in the cases subject to this analysis.

This report is divided in four parts: the first part – the Context - presents the overview of the situation in media and the freedom of speech in Macedonia; the second part presents, in detail, the cases of Martin Neškovski, the incident in Brussels and the lustration of Vladimir Milčin; the third part offers an overview of most commonly used manipulation techniques; and the last, the fourth part contains the conclusions.

It should be noted that this analysis took into account the journalistic reports and media articles dedicated to the said cases, published and aired in the first seven days since the start of each of the cases, respectively.

1. THE CONTEXT

The already noted process of deterioration of the situation in the media in Macedonia continued in 2011. The evident mobilisation of the media along political lines, the pressure exerted on the editors and the journalists, and the continued violations of standards of public information resulted in a series of reactions by a number of factors, both on national level and abroad. The main points of focus for the criticism and the calls to overcome the existing situation were the shut-down of the media located in Pero Nakov street in Skopje, the media coverage of the Parliamentary Elections 2011, the lay-offs of journalists and their union representatives, the announcement that new Media Law is to be adopted without proper public debate, the changes in the Broadcasting Law that allowed for expansion of the membership of the Broadcasting Council, the channelling of the advertising funds from the State Budget, and a series of processes that resulted from the developments listed above.

Among the reactions that followed the said negative processes, we need to point out the following:

The Association of Journalists of Macedonia (AJM), the Macedonian Institute for the Media (MIM) and the Independent Union of Journalists and Media Professionals of Macedonia

(UJMPM) all came forward with their reactions to the adopted changes of the Broadcasting Law:

“MIM, AJM and UJMPM strongly protest1 to the proposed changes in the Broadcasting Law that propose a change of the composition and the number of members of the Broadcasting Council. The three organizations believe that any change of the media regulations should be reviewed and adopted with utmost care, in a transparent and open process which would take into account the views of the media professionals, experts and professional associations, collected in proper expert and public debate. The changes in important legislation, such as the Broadcasting Law, in a urgent procedure that excluded the media, the expert community and other stake- holders, will further complicated the situation of the media in the country, and the solutions that were adopted without considering the views and opinions of the media community shall be perceived as solutions imposed from outside2”.

In that context, the international organisation “Reporters without Borders” warned about the trend for dramatic deterioration of the situation of the media in Macedonia:

“The Reporters without Borders reacted to the closure of A1 Television, the three daily newspapers and the changes in the composition of the Broadcasting Council, as well as the lay-offs of journalists-members of the journalist’s trade union... The organisation concludes that the Government in Skopje “seized the chance to silence some of the few media that criticize it”. Furthermore, the Reporters without Borders see the decision to fire the state TV’s board of governors as an “attempted coup at the state TV”. The organization noted the individual cases of termination of employment of members of journalists' trade union, such as the cases of the union president Tamara Čausidis, who was fired by Alsat-M TV, and Tamara Grnčarovska, fired by the "Utrinski vesnik” daily.”

The OSCE3 Representative on Freedom of the Media sent a series of messages and letters to the responsible parties in Macedonia:

“OSCE warns4 that the closure of the three pro-opposition newspapers, on alleged tax evasion charges, practically eliminated the newspapers' criticism of the Government. The OSCE suspects that media which has been critical of the government has been specifically targeted by the authorities, and urged them to ensure media pluralism and transparent investigations5”.

“OSCE expressed its concerns6 over the attacks on press freedom in Macedonia. The OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media, Dunja Mijatović, comments in her letter, that in spite of numerous appeals, the situation in Macedonia further

1http://www.mim.org.mk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=339%3A2011-07-13-13-13-51&catid=39%3A2008-12-01-12-31- 11&lang=mk. 2 http://www.mim.org.mk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=341%3A2011-07-18-12-36-46&catid=39%3A2008-12-01-12-31- 11&lang=mk 3 Organization for Security and co-operation in Europe (OSCE) Representative on Freedom of the Media, http://www.osce.org/fom. 4 http://www.osce.org/fom/81610, July 4, 2011. 5 Balkan Insight, “OSCE: Macedonia Opposition Press Practically Eliminated". 6 http://www.osce.org/fom/81610, August 11, 2011

deteriorates. She noted the recent termination of employment contract for trade union president Tamara Čausidis, and the withdrawal of broadcasting licence of A1 Television".7

The Broadcasting Council sanctioned a number of violations by the media in the media coverage of the Early Parliamentary Elections 2011, most of all for early start of campaigning in the media, violations of campaign silence regulations and unbalanced reporting8.

In the beginning of July 2011, the Ethics Council of the AJM submitted its collective resignation, in reaction to the deteriorating situation in the media:

“The Ethics Council concludes that it lacks other tools to ensure that its recommendations would achieve the desired effect. The collective resignation of the members of the Ethics Council is an act of protest over the situation of Macedonian journalism, which is held hostage by the interests of media owners and other powers that be, mostly the political parties, instead of serving the public and the truth. The principles of the Ethical Code are violated unscrupulously, and the journalists have not expressed the will to fight for their profession, which should be an important part of the creation of democratic ambience and public opinion. The public trust in the media has fallen to the lowest possible levels", states the official press release of the Council".9 Nationally, several reactions to those events and processes were registered, and we need to point out the session of the Parliament that debated the situation in the media and in which the MPs failed to adopt any conclusions10, and the creation, on October 10, of the working group to deal with the media situation, which includes the Deputy Prime Minister for European Affairs, the Minister of Interior, the Minister of Labour and Social Policies, and four representatives of the AJM11. The general impression is that these activities are rather formal and political, and they are yet to result in actions that would have practical effects and influence that could be subject to analysis. It was the treatment of the issue of defamation and AJM's demands to decriminalize defamation, which is still far from resolution, which proved to be the key issue to be dealt by the working group.

7 Deutsche Welle in Macedonian language, „ОБСЕ: Состојбата во македонските медиуми сé полоша“, http://www.dw- world.de/dw/article/0,,15312347,00.html 8 Before the start of the election campaign, misdemeanour charges were brought against Alb TV, Kanal 5 TV and A1 TV. A total of 12 misdemeanour charges were brought during the Election Campaign, two against A1 TV, one against Kanal 5 TV, BTR TV, Sitel TV, Iris TV, Šutel TV, Alb TV, Sonce TV from Prilep and Naša TV. During the campaign silence period, misdemeanour charges were brought against A1 TV, two charges were filed against MTV1, Sonce TV – Prilep and Sitel TV. Misdemeanour charges for non-balanced reporting were filed against MTV1, A1 TV, Alb TV, Kanal 5 TV, AB Kanal TV, and against the First Programme of the Macedonian Radio. For unbalanced interviews, charges were brought against Naša TV and Kanal 5 Plus TV. According to the Broadcasting Council, Telma TV, Alsat M TV, Alfa TV and Kanal 77 Radio from Štip provided balanced reporting. The reporting on Alb TV, MTV, Macedonian Radio 1 was dramatically unbalanced. 9 Špic, July 2, 2011 10 ”On a proposal of the opposition, as point 70 in the Agenda, a debate on the situation in the media will be requested. Government’s pressure on editorial policies, the firing of unsuitable journalists, selective government advertising and the closure of A1 TV, as well as the closing of several other critical media, are just some of the arguments that the opposition wants to present at the session of August 24-25, 2011” (Plusinfo, August 23, 2011). 11 Deutsche Welle in Macedonian, October 10, 2011, „Со добра волја до заедничко решение“: The Government of Macedonia and the Association of Journalists of Macedonia today (October 10) officially created the working group for improved situation in the media.

The International Partnership Group of freedom of expression organisations12 visited Macedonia, November 17-18, on a fact finding mission and met with representatives of the Government, the Parliament, the civil sector, journalists’ associations and media development organisations, as well as individual journalists. The Group expressed its concerns over the situation of freedom of expression and press freedom13, and noted that it was necessary: For the Government to take urgent and efficient steps to implement the recommendations on the press freedom listed in the EU’s 2011 Progress Report on Macedonia, as well as the recommendations of OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media, to decriminalize defamation, to implement changes in the legislation on civil defamation to protect the freedom of expression, to develop a public media service capable of income generation and collection that would allow it to avoid excessive politicisation. According to the Group, there is a lack of pluralism and diversity in the media, media ownership structures are opaque and unaccountable, there is selective implementation of the law directed at the independent media and their branches, which is especially true in the area of taxation, which are contrary to international and European standards of the rule of Law. The increase of number of members of the Broadcasting Council, the nomination and election of members and the lack of transparency and open consultations on the Broadcasting Law were cause of serious concern. While the use of public advertising funds could result in wider benefits, the disproportionally large advertising activities of the Government of Macedonia – estimated to be the second biggest source of advertising revenue in the country – creates unfair conditions and distorts the media market, with the media critical of the Government put in inferior and unfavourable position. For that reason, the Group called on the Government of Macedonia to use the public advertising funds transparently and in a manner that would ensure accountability to the public.

The 2011 Progress Report on Macedonia, prepared by the European Commission, notes a number of negative processes on the media scene: Close political relations maintained by the media; purposeful politically motivated distribution of advertising funds from the State Budget; selective application of the laws in the field of media business; and growing political pressure on editors and journalists14.

The conclusion is that the deteriorating situation in Macedonian media has had huge negative effects, both socially and politically, on national and international levels. At the same time, it was a strong blow against the democratic image of the country, while the consequences of

12 The International Partnership Group for Macedonia had representatives from: Article 19, Freedom House, Censorship Index, Internatioanl Press Institute, the Global Forum for Media Development, Media Diversity Institute, Open Society Foundation’s Media Programme, SEE Media Organisation (SEEMO) and the South Eastern Network for Professionalisation of the Media 13The joint statement of the International Group was published on November 23, 2011: http://freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=70&release=1524 ; the Censorship Index published its reaction on December 1, 2011: http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2011/12/macedonia-media-freedom-sliding-backwards/ 14 „Media ownership remains opaque, highly concentrated and with strong political links. The government is one of the biggest advertisers in the country and there are concerns that funds are directed to television channels which are supportive of the government. Certain television channels are major donors to political parties. The investigation, on charges of tax evasion and subsequent closure of a television channel A1TV and newspapers which are critical of the government has raised concerns about the proportionality and selectivity of the procedure. The diversity of the media landscape has been weakened. Printing of the newspapers Vreme, Špic and Koha e Re stopped in early July. Editors and journalists are faced with increasing undue political pressure and intimidation“, European Commission Staff Working Paper, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Progress Report for 2011, стр. 17.

deregulated media system have negative mid-term and long-term effect on a series of processes.

2. OVERVIEW OF MOST IMPORTANT MEDIA CASES IN 2011

2.1. The “Martin Neškovski” Case On the night of June 5, 2001, after the completion of the Early Parliamentary Elections - which passed peacefully and without reported cases of violence - the 22-year old Martin Neškovski lost his life during the celebration of electoral victory by the winner, the Coalition "For Better Macedonia" on the Macedonian Square in Skopje. The tragic event was preceded by a heated exchange of words and a chase over the square with one employee of the Ministry of Interior (MOI) who was part of the security detail of the event. In front of several witnesses, the young man succumbed to the series of fierce blows over the head and the body, inflicted by an identified member of the special police unit "Tigers" (Macedonian Police's SWAT team). Over the first 24 hours after the event, the media offered confusing reports on the event. The first to report the case were Makfax and Netpress news agencies, which reported that a young man has died in the Skopje's main square, being beaten by an employee of the MOI: “Last night, at about 00:40 hours, one member off the “Alfa” special unit beat up to the death a 23-year old young man in Skopje’s main square. Eyewitnesses say that the victim was a young man named Daniel from Skopje’s borough of Gjorče Petrov. A witness to the crime, who attended the nearby “Basker Fest”, confirmed for Netpress that the young man was victim to a brutal physical assault... Other witnesses, speaking on condition of anonymity, say that when passing through the park near the MEPSO building, saw the same young man on the ground, covered with black nylon bag, with several policemen standing around in silence”.15 (Netpress, June 6, 2011) “About 40 minutes after midnight, on Macedonia Square, in front of the MEPSO building, an unidentified person in his early 20’s died from reasons that have not been determined yet, Skopje Police Department (SVR Skopje) confirmed for Makfax. The young man was brought to the MEPSO building by four or five persons from the square, the site of the ongoing Basker Fest, where, according to witnesses, he collapsed, SVR Skopje says. The paramedics that arrived soon after determined the death on the site. Forensic team of SVR Skopje inspected the site. On orders of the investigative judge, the body was sent for autopsy. “We are working to determine the identity of the person", SVR Skopje told Makfax".16 (Makfax, June 6, 2011) The two news quoted above will provide the general tone of the reporting over the following several days. The pro-government media will try persistently to minimise the case, using different defocusing techniques, downplay its importance, dosing of facts framed in relative

15 „Member of the Alfa unit beat up a boy to death, witnesses claim”, Netpress, June 6, 2011. 16 „Young man died last night on Macedonian square”, Makfax, June 6, 2011.

context, depending on the daily dynamics, discrediting of actors that seek responsibility from the Government and hiding behind the facts under legalist excuses. In all those cases, the reporting was based on the official versions of the events coming from Government representatives. For example: The fact that the case was not published in MOI’s “Daily Bulletin” of June 6, 2011, and the vague and superficial reporting by the pro-government “Večer” on June 7, 2011, created the impression that the case is covered up, with facts hidden from the public: “An unidentified young man, between 23 and 25 years of age, was found dead yesterday night in the lawn in front of the MEPSO building in downtown Skopje. The police patrol arrived to the location at 00:40 hours, acting on a report by a citizen. The witnesses of the event told the police that several minutes before midnight, on Macedonia Square, an unknown young man collapsed while attending the “Basker Fest” events. Four or five men took him to the loan in front of MEPSO building where they tried to help him. They called an ambulance, and the paramedics determined the death upon arrival. A medical doctor noted initially that there were no visible signs of violence on the deceased young man. On order of an investigative judge, the body was transported to the Institute of Forensic Medicine to conduct an autopsy and determine the causes of death. The police are working to determine the identity of the dead young man”. (Večer, June 7, 2011) Večer’s report largely corresponds to the news released by Makfax, bringing about suspicions of coordinated reporting of the case. The other media, which didn’t report the case on the first day, presented their reports on June 7, almost 48 hours later, when civil protests against police brutality and, as participants in the protests said, the attempt to cover up the case by the authorities, were already under way: “One member of the special police unit “Tigers” brutally beat up to death the 22- year old Martin Neškovski from Skopje. The Police, after spending the whole first day claiming that such an event was never reported, came forward with information that the homicide has been solved only yesterday evening. A member of the special police unit was arrested under suspicion that on Sunday night, 40 minutes after midnight, brutally beat up the young man to death, while the followers of the ruling party celebrated electoral victory. The police arrested Igor Spasov (33), employed by MOI, who, according to the competent authorities, admitted his guilt yesterday at about 18:00 hours. Allegedly, he didn’t even know that the young man succumbed to the fierce blows. The motives for such a brutal attack are yet to be determined". (Utrinski vesnik, June 8, 2011) Two days after the case, the media reporting was divided between two thematic poles: The details of the investigation and the daily protests against police brutality. In the later stages, some pro-government media, in the attempt to downplay the protests and their persistent demands, undertook a ruthless media discrediting of some of the participants, spreading wild speculations about the activists and participants, their motivation and the alleged political background. “New action by journalists close to Soros and SDSM. They demand protests because of the fact that the media of Velija Ramkovski, which defrauded over €10 million from

the citizens for the benefit of their owner, now face bankruptcy and the journalists face unemployment. It is well known that, for decades, the Association of Journalists have been controlled, both financially and in terms of its personnel, by the Soros Foundation and SDSM. The Association was led by editors and journalists the were, without exception, close to SDSM and (Branko) Crvenkovski". (Sitel, July 3, 2011) In the first week, the pro-government media adopted, in an almost synchronized manner, the editorial position that the case has been solved, the perpetrator was detained and in the hands of the judicial and prosecution authorities, while the ongoing protests were seen as baseless and organized by the opposition parties to dispute the victory of the ruling coalition. Obviously, their reporting was in line with official information coming from government representatives and synchronized with their official interpretation of events. The aims of such coverage were to isolate the protests and to create public pressure that aimed to discourage the citizens from joining the protests and increase their ranks. The other media reserved equal or greater space to the participants in the protests, compared to representatives of government authorities. They focused on reporting the unclear circumstances of the case and coverage of the daily protests, reporting their views and demands. Those demands referred to the responsibility of official institutions for the attempt to cover up the case, the involvement of other officers of MOI, the role of the medical personnel, and the responsibility of the high-ranking MOI officials that took part in the organisation of the security of the celebration and the distribution of Ministry’s officers in the square. The participants in the protests demanded the removal of the incumbent Minister of Interior Gordana Jankulovska from the new Government and the resignation of the assistant Minister for public relations Ivo Kotevski. In that context, the media were divided into those who saw the protests as political party motivated scenario, and those who continued to report the case, the protests and the citizens' demands. The media the continuously defended the government’s position used several techniques to channel their messages - giving priority in the coverage to the involved government representatives, repeat of the view that the case was solved and closed, sporadic reporting on the demands presented by protesters, while in the later stages, some of them moved to direct labelling of the organizers and some participants of the protests as "members of the opposition party SDSM and the Soros foundation". The last phase of their editorial policy was to ignore the protests completely and exclude them from their reporting. The events surrounding the protests culminated with the organisation of the so-called "counter-protest" against the alleged politicisation of the case, on June 20, 2011, the 15th day of protests: “Two parallel protests were held yesterday in the centre of Skopje. One group protested, for the 15th day in a row, against police brutality, while the second group gathered, as they say, to react against the political abuse of the protests and the murder of Martin (Neškovski) by the opposition party SDSM. The newly-formed group that protested the political abuse of the youth didn’t support the demands of their peers – the resignations by Jankulovska and MOI spokesman Ivo Kotevski. They believe that the institutions have completed their task in an express manner and found Martin’s murderer in just two days. The first group appealed for calmness. The new group moved towards the headquarters of SDSM to express their revolt by the opposition's intent to politicise the youth protests. The people at Bihaćka reacted. In

their view, the government first wanted to cover up the murder and has infiltrated provocateurs in the attempt to destroy and dissipate the protests”. (Alpha, June 20, 2011) The demands of the protests were not met, in spite of the fact that they went on every day for more than a month. From the point of view of how it was reported by the media, the Neškovski case proved that the majority of the media, especially the pro-government media that have political and business ties with the ruling parties, are a took of political competition, at the expense of professional, balanced and neutral informing of the public. The media outside that pro-government front tried to report the protests neutrally and provided more space to the protesters subjected to media harangue and accused of politically dictated activities. In general, the events that carry political implications obviously mobilize the media to take a role and a side in the political competition, making themselves main protagonists of the efforts to persuade the public and pressure the actors, without reservations regarding the means they would use to achieve those politically motivated goals. This tragic case again demonstrated that the collusion of media and political parties is a very serious problem. Another dimension to the case was given by the use of new media and social networks (Facebook and Twitter) as an alternative media space to dissipate messages and information to the public and to coordinate the protests in Skopje and in several other cities and towns in Macedonia. The Facebook group in support of the protests against police brutality gathered 21,606 members, while Twitter micro-blogging service carried close to 6,000 messages with the hashtags #protestiram and #martin in just one week after the tragic event, while the videos recorded at the protests were viewed over 40,000 times on YouTube. The mass use of the new media coincided with the feeling of the protesters that the traditional media were not on their side as a professional and objective channel to transmit the protests' messages. Furthermore, they had the feeling that the traditional media were an instrument in the hands of those targeted by the protests. The new media were seen and used as a direct communication channel between the protesters and their supporter and the general public, outside of the area controlled by the electronic and the print media, which were viewed as media entities under strict political control. As in other placed in the world, the intensive use of the new, decentralized and personalized communication platforms signalled not only a change of habits, but also a clear reaction against the controlled media and the inability of individuals and interested groups to be heard and seen or, on the other hand, to be objectively and professionally informed.

2.2. The Incident at the Debate in Brussels On September 20, 2011, at the European Parliament in Brussels, a debate was organized by the parliamentary club of the European Liberals – ALDE, on the situation in the media and the freedom of the press in the Republic of Macedonia. Margarita Caca Nikolovska, former Judge of the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg; Borjan Jovanovski, former editor at A1 TV; Biljana Sekulovska, former journalist at A1 TV; Slobodanka Jovanovska, journalist with “Utrinski vesnik” daily; and Petar Stojković - actor and activist in the protests after the murder of Martin Neškovski, were officially invited as panellists from Macedonia. ALDE's debate was open and all interested persons were allowed to participate, upon prior announcement of their participation. Three Macedonian citizens with media background – Mirka Velinovska, columnist at “Nova Makedonija" daily; Milenko Nedelkovski, host of a

talk show aired on Kanal 5 TV; and Boban Nonković, from “Dnevnik“ daily, used the opportunity to follow the debate. The opening remarks at the debate by MEP Jelko Kacin were interrupted by the three who shouted that the selection of speakers from Macedonia wasn't representative of Macedonian journalism, because the invited people were not journalists and that MEPs were acting as bolsheviks. In spite of the repeated warnings by the moderator, the appeal to allow the debate to proceed and the promise that everybody will get the floor to speak, the group continued shouting and disrupting the discussion. MEP Georgios Shatzimarkakis reacted and demanded that they leave the premises. He entered into a verbal exchange with the group, and when they were leaving the room, there was a physical contact. Only one cameraman from Sitel TV and a representative of the Macedonian Embassy to Brussels were present at the debate. After the incident, the debate was resumed and was completed to the end. The incident was provoked on purpose to be used for manipulation, as evident from the initial statements of the involved actors. We decided, having in mind the situation and the scenario, to disrupt it by creating a scandal. That in view that this panel discussion was a demonstration of single-minded Euro-bolshevism”, said Mirka Velinovska, a journalist. (МTV, September 21, 2011) Macedonian pro-government media focused their coverage of the incident on three theses: 1. The scandal was provoked by MEP Shatzimarkakis; 2. Shatzimarkakis and Kacin organized the event to harm Macedonia; and 3. the panellists were there to cause harm to Macedonia. It was evident immediately that the incident was planned in advance by the fact that there was no report in the media that would focus on the actual debate and the presentations by the panellists. Also, the video edited by Sitel TV omitted the start of the scandal when the group interrupted Kacin’s second sentence, the parts in which Kacin, as mediator, pleads with them to honour the agenda and to be patient until they were given the floor, and focuses on their exchange of words with Shatzimarkakis in the corridors of the European Parliament. Such selective approach is essential in order to justify the three theses. “Borjan Jovanovski will present his opinion in which he will spit on Macedonian public and Macedonian state, having in mind that his boss from A1 is in jail and he himself works for the ‘Sorosoids’ for years”. (Sitel, September 20, 2011) The sentence above ties Jovanovski's appearance with his true and invented past and placed the third thesis about the treason of the Brussels' panellists. If, however, the journalistic standards on reporting were applied and if panellists' presentations were carried, such a thesis is practically impossible: First of all, I will use this opportunity to address you today to demand, as all the other citizens of my country, your support and help for us to start the accession negotiations as soon as possible. Those negotiations, in my opinion, are the sole instrument that could push the country forward. (Borjan Jovanovski, Plusinfo, November 23, 2011)

The other pro-government media repeated the initial theses presented by Sitel TV, expanded with personal discrediting of all involved actors apart from the group that provoked the incident in the first place. MEPs Kacin and Shatzimarkakis were targeted by journalistic reports that questioned their role in the event, which letter was extended to their offices: “His doctor’s thesis should be reviewed by his bosses in Brussels. They need to review his materials carefully. Only then can they decide if Shatzimarkakis is prepared to continue to chair the EP’s Committee for Cooperation with Macedonian Parliament. EU leaders should be certain if he can continue to lecture us here, in Macedonia”. (Dnevnik, September 23, 2011) This is, in essence, an elaboration of the thesis posited by Antonio Milošoski, MP for VMRO-DPMNE, one day earlier: “I don’t think that the reputation of MEP Shatzimarkakis in Macedonian public will improve after this event. Nevertheless, his reputation in Macedonia could have great effect on the efficiency of his work in the mixed Parliamentary committee”. (Kanal 5, September 22, 2011) These are two clear examples that the statements by ruling party officials are echoed by the media. It creates the impression for the public that several sources in different positions in society share a common view and suggest, pressured by the majority of society, that it is the truth. These two messages clearly and consciously falsely determine the source of the scandal and "worry" about his reputation because of his position in the relations with Macedonia. The goal is to discredit Shatzimarkakis’ official position, to create an impression with the national public that the government is facing a malicious treatment by EU structures and, therefore, secure an excuse for an eventual negative 2011 Progress Report by EC. The point is that, if such a malicious position of the MEP exists and has been detected, it should be addressed to the European institutions using formal channels. The fact that it was not done illustrates the idea to use Shatzimarkakis and Kacin for local political propaganda goals. One important element of the propaganda action was the disqualification of the right of invited Macedonian panellists and speakers to speak about and discuss the situation in the media in Macedonia, using the position that they are not journalists or that they are only former journalists. The public service broadcasters applied a series of propaganda techniques in its coverage of the event. Suggestive language: “Most of them are inactive former editors and journalists at this time. The protest of the so-called outsiders was directed against the unilateral approach of the organizers who aimed to debate the real situation of the media in Macedonia”. (MTV1,September 21, 2011) Unilateral approach: The report presents the statements by Milenko Nedelkovski, Boban Nonković and Mirka Velinovska, without a statement from the opposite side; one statement by “a foreigner in our

favour” – Milan Zver, who is presented as "objective" Slovenian MEP, unlike his colleague Kacin; Discrediting of actors through use of “independent" source: “Everybody can say what they want, but not Shatzimarkakis, who should first explain if he managed to prove that he didn’t falsify his Ph.D. degree, which cost him his position in the EP". (Slobodan Čašule, September 21, 2011) “The theory of ongoing conspiracy, but we shall prevail because we have justice on our side”: “This is a process that has proceeded over a longer period of time in the context of creation of virtual ambience of non-democracy and non-freedom in the Republic of Macedonia, and the attempts to transfer that process to the entity that Macedonia wants to join, the EU", said the analyst Zvonimir Jankulovski. Nonetheless, the analysts believe that the scandal will not stain Macedonia, having in mind that the Union bases the report on facts, not on individual opinions”. (MTV1, September 21, 2011) Institutions supporting the views of the broadcaster: “The World Macedonian Congress dismisses indignantly the participation of Borjan Jovanovski, Biljana Sekulovska and Slobodanka Jovanovska in this panel discussion and considers it irrelevant, knowing that they were active participants in the defence of Velija Ramkovski, A1 TV owner, who faces criminal charges”, states the press release by the WMC”. (MTV1, September 21, 2011) Reactions of minor and marginal pro-government political parties: The press statement by the Socialist Party gets a whole report, although this party gets little media attention, with the exception of Sitel TV: “’Moderate’ and suggestive statements by political figures that contrast the event and instil trust in the 'wisdom’ of the leadership” – it quoted Antonio Milošoski and Gordana Jankulovska: “We encourage the debate on any given topic, knowing that nobody holds a monopoly on the truth and it is always necessary to hear different sides. Any inappropriate behaviour should be condemned, but as I said, the questions from, so to say, the guild needs to be resolved by the journalists themselves, instead of the government or another external actor, said Gordana Jankulovska, Minister of Interior”. (MTV1, 22.09.2011) The reporting of the pro-government media was dominated by the benevolence towards the persons that provoked the incident, who were presented as courageous and ready to sacrifice themselves to defend the freedom of expression and Macedonian national interests.

Alsat M TV, Telma TV, Alfa TV and Utrinski vesnik daily maintained their neutral position and described the event from several view-points, while Nova Makedonija implemented its noted tactic of neutral reports and partisan columns.

2.3. Lustration Process The controversial process of lustration in the Republic of Macedonia and the even more controversial work of the Commission for Verification of Facts, proved to be a real treat for the media from the very beginning. Journalists follow each new case of lustration with great attention. That process and its media coverage culminated, in a way, with the lustration of Vladimir Milčin, Executive Director of the Foundation Open Society Macedonia, professor at the School of Dramatic Arts and open and fierce critic of the policies of the current Government. Although the Commission for Verification of Facts is charged to implement the process responsibly and professionally, while the release of information is strictly regulated with the Law on Lustration, in almost all past cases, the public was informed – unofficially and in orchestrated speculative, sometimes outright condemning manner – by the pro-government media first, and only then by the other media and with official information coming from the Commission and other involved parties. It was the pro-government media (internet portals, TV broadcasters and newspapers, in that sequence) that came forward in a orchestrated effort, simultaneously and with their information obviously coming from and "anonymous source", that declared on July 21, 2011, that the lustrators got their hands on the file of a new "snitch" (!).The media offered “exclusive” and yet symptomatically identical reports, quoting their "own sources", that “a former dean of one of the three faculties of arts” (the web-site of MTV, Kanal 5 TV, July 21, 2011), who "has several public offices listed in his resume, usually related to his profession, but also outside of it" (Kurir, Sitel TV, July 21, 2011), cooperated with the secret services. Some media, like MTV, Kanal 5 TV, Press 24, put special emphasis on the fact that the “snitch” was a civil sector activist and the first man of a “humanitarian organisation”. Announcing that the Commission already prepared its decision, the media went so far as to claim categorically that “once the decision reaches the collaborator, he will have to resign from all his offices" (Kurir, Pres 24), while MTV and Sitel TV were far more concrete and directly announced the ultimate goal of the lustration process: “... will have to leave the leading position that this person holds in the nongovernmental organisation". (MTV, July 21, 2011); "Once he receives the decision and the procedure is completed, the "Dramatist" will have to leave his teaching position and to stop his activities in the nongovernmental sector". (Sitel TV, July 22, 2011). The chairman of the Commission Tome Adžiev gave symptomatically identical statement on July 22, 2011, after the Commission officially announced its conclusion that the "Dramatist" collaborated with the secret services: “Once the decision reaches the collaborator, he will have to resign from all his offices" (Dnevnik, July 22, 2011). Although Adžiev's statement was disputed by Zvonimir Jankulovski, one of the authors of the Law on Lustration, who said that "he believes that privately owned businesses will have to decide themselves whether to employ snitches in their companies" (MTV1, July 22, 2011), the pro-government media harangue continued. Večer daily carried the following headline on July 22: “Soros’ official the third snitch in Macedonia”, while Dnevnik daily continually praised the process of lustration and the

dealing with the communist regime in its comments, simultaneously attacking mostly Vladimir Milčin, George Soros and the civil sector: “So we had a spy leading the foundation that has fought for democracy and human rights since times immemorial? A copper's snitch was commanding the organisation that has stopped at nothing to stain, to destroy Gruevski's regime as totalitarian, similar to the regimes of Kim Il Sung, Lukashenko, Milošević, Hitler...” (Dnevnik, July 22, 2011) Only to “score” the next day with the conclusion: “In dramatic terms, this hero of our times has found his end. I'd say, we see the end of a dark, rigid, secret police supported era of snitches in the top ranks of Macedonian political scene, nongovernmental organisations and journalism. God bless us all, until the lustration of the next snitches”. (Dnevnik, July 23, 2011) The media reported, in great detail, the press-conference held by Milčin, in which he presented his police file and noted that he was subject of investigation and surveillance by the secret services and not collaborator, and that the process was politically motivated with the goal to discredit the Foundation Open Society as defender of democracy in Macedonia. The pro-government media used ironic overtones in their reporting: “With a 250 pages thick file in his hands and moral support from all NGOs he gave money to, he tried to prove that he was clean” and that, yet, “Sitel TV’s sources confirm that prominent actors from past generations of Macedonian theatrical scene were victims of Dramatist's ratting...". (Sitel, July 25, 2011) Some media started their reports with outright insinuations: “He tried to challenge the lustration process at the Constitutional Court, and today claims, the 217 page file in hand – this is the proof that I was under surveillance...” (MTV1, July 25, 2011). Over the next several days, the media interest in Milčin’s lustration didn't stop but intensified. Journalists quoted Adžiev who said that the Commission could decide that even persons who didn’t sign personal agreements, like Milčin, collaborated with the secret services; they reported the submission of Commission’s conclusion to Milčin by official courier; Milčin’s lawsuit to the Administrative Court and, to slightly lesser extent, the reactions of political parties and expert community. The pro-government media persisted in their efforts to prove Milčin’s guilt in the matter, and created the list of people that he, allegedly, snitched on, while some went to the extent that they used unsigned articles that, without any facts or arguments on offer, presented suspicions that Milčin tore out pages from his file: “The lustration procedure will show if Milčin tore pages out of the file that he waved in front of cameras yesterday” (Večer, July 27, 2011). To a much lesser degree, some media consulted different experts to analyze the lustration process so far. Some experts believe that the lustration was not successful and “the way Milčin's case was pursued brings about a dilemma for all people if the lustration was not politically motivated" (Osman Kadriu, Nova Makedonija, July 27, 2011).

For some “the lustration is a farce” (Filip Petrovski, Nova Makedonija, July 27, 2011), some believe that “...distinction needs to be made between true collaborators and victims of secret services” (Stojan Slavevski, Nova Makedonija, July 27, 2011), and for some “nobody can be declared collaborator of the secret services without a signed written consent”, (Stevo Pendarovski, Dnevnik, July 27, 2011). Although Milčin pointed out, in his press-conference, that Adžiev's term as chairman of the Commission has been expired for five months, the media showed very little interest, in the first several days, in the issue whether the Commission for lustration violates the procedure and whether its decision was legitimate. The lustration process continues to make waves in Macedonian public opinion because of the following: Even five years after the lawsuit filed by Vladimir Milčin, the Administrative Court has not ruled on it; The Constitutional Court has not yet ruled on several petitions related to the Law on Lustration; public speculation abounds about new lustration processes, against connected to former public officials, opposition officials and members of the Macedonian Academy of Arts and Sciences (MANU); the Commission decided to lustrate the journalists in commercial media and members of civic organisations. By the end of the year, a lot of commotion in the public was created by the announcement of another lustration process - against the former Minister of Interior Ljubomir Frčkoski, who is charged with ordering surveillance of people for ideological and political reasons.

3. OVERVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF MOST COMMONLY USED METHODS OF MANIPULATION BY THE MEDIA

Through that process of polarisation of the media, their political instrumentalisation and orientation towards persuasion and manipulation, it was professional standards and journalist ethics that suffered first. This de facto pushed aside the public as a factor for whom the information is aimed, while the information needs to be of highest quality in order to ensure that the media would successfully pursue their public function. In addition to the evident drop of standards and ethical principles in media reporting, there was complementary practice of manipulation and use of various techniques of distortion of facts and information with the aim to achieve a propaganda effect. The politically implicative reporting not only became the dominant principle, but was often the sole principle used by most media. In the context of the described political and economic domination, that principle of functioning of the media certainly worked in favour of the government and its interests17, since it does posses the largest number of instruments and power to impose its views and interests. The media were completely removed in their functioning in a market competition of quality and diversity of information to an extremely brutal race of political favours and representation of interests of political centres of power.

17 In September-October 2011, several articles and TV stories were registered in the pro-government media that tried to downplay that dominant market position and present it as “dominant influence of the opposition in the media” (for example, Zoran Dimitrovski’s The Government Won’t Allow Any Praise for It, Dnevnik, September 2, 2011; “A Rough Estimate – the Opposition Leads the Way! Among national TV broadcasters, Sitel TV, MTV and, in a slightly more sophisticated manner Kanal 5 TV support the Government. What about Alsat, Telma and Alpha? What with TV 24? What with the announcement that A1’s team intends to reactivate, this time on A2 TV? SDSM is building up its advantage! What is the situation regarding newspapers? Does the Government control “Vest”? Of perhaps it controls “Utrinski”, “Fokus” and “Kapital”? What about “Nova Makedonija”?, available at http://www.dnevnik.com.mk/?ItemID=3B6EFB20AAE9304BBE1DAD1890B9BA1C).

In the effort to illustrate the most common techniques of distortion of information and facts, this analysis covered several events in 2011 that received extensive coverage: The closure of several media outlets18, the firing of journalists, including the president of Union of Trade Unions of Journalists and Media Professionals (UTJMP19); the media coverage of the lustration process, i.e. the lustration of Vladimir Milčin; the “Martin Neškovski“ Case; and the events and developments surrounding the debate "The Situation of the Media in Macedonia", held on September 20 at the European Parliament.

3.1. Authorship and Sources Several previous analyses of the situation of media and information in Macedonia noted the high percentage of cases of non-transparent attribution of authorship20 in the media. The absence of authors’ signatures proved to be a commonly used technique to place politically tendentious and sensitive contents. The hidden authorship, in a dominant number of cases, signals not just a low levels of transparency, but also high levels of political implications in the contents with intent to present, often directly, or to protect the given political or economic position or view. A number of articles reviewed and analysed for this report repeat the noted occurrence of articles and stories that are not signed by the authors, or indeed, in which the authors are indicated by their initials only. In such situations, those usually refer to contents and messages provided, prepared, and even ordered by political and economic factors outside the medium, which need to be “shaped” in common journalistic forms to carry the message. Such messages and contents are presented as coming from the media itself which, as a "neutral and professional carrier of information", needs to secure it with journalistic legitimacy and cover. That is increasingly frequent phenomenon in Macedonian media, in view off the fact that the development of public relations offices in political and economic entities results in they themselves deciding on strategies and contents that need to be pushed through the usual communication channels to the general public. What it is, in fact, is an extension of the known phenomenon of “hidden advertising” into economic and political field. With TV stories, the covering of authorship is more difficult to achieve, because the voice and the face of the reporter are far more difficult to suppress than the actual contents that is being broadcast. Nevertheless, TV articles manage to use different approaches to mask the authorship through a variety of linguistic manipulation techniques, which in a form of a “journalistic argot” aim to cover the fact that these are information that the journalist presents for the benefit of external interests. In those situations, the journalists has to choose between two techniques: (a) present those messages as if they were his/her own, giving them "journalistic legitimacy and value"; (b) mask the true authorship, passing it through a third party to give it legitimacy, which is usually done through manipulation of the source of information.

18 This includes A1 TV, the three dailies published by “Plus Produkcija” company, and several other of its publications, the prolonged legal procedure regarding A2 TV and the closure of the publications of the “Seavus” group – “Forum” and “Life”). 19 http://ssnm.org.mk/ 20 Media Mirror 2011 – Parliamentary Elections 2011: “In the print media, 37% of all articles were not signed by the author, with another 25.6% signed only with initials... With the electronic media, opaque treatment of attribution of authorship of articles is noted in 29.8% of all cases, where it is impossible to determine who prepared the given articles”. (Page 10).

It is in those cases when opulent language is used to place contents, through vague or unnamed sources, the favour the political, economic or private interests of external entities. The following examples were noted: “analysts say”, “experts estimate”, “we learn”, “we found out”, “according to [the name of the media]“, "sources of [name of the media]" and other phrases similar in function: “The information is that a part of the training programme included a course on organisation of such protests abroad, Sitel TV's sources say". (Sitel, June 15, 2011)

“These protests abuse the death of a young man for political party purposes, analysts say”. (Sitel, June 15, 2011) The tolerated low standards of source attribution and fact checking allow the editors and journalists to place crude purposeful speculations: “The deadline to pay the debt to the state expires on August 8. Therefore, the decision to down-size the news is, to say the least, rather symptomatic. Could it be that, in addition to the attempt to exert public pressure, the TV station tries to restore its ratings that has fallen precipitously over the past six months". (MTV1, July 2, 2011) “The street revolutionaries that root for Greek, Algerian or some other scenario to take down the government". (Dnevnik, June 11, 2011) “After the internet portals announced that one of the best friends of Martin Neškovski planned to tattoo a picture of his friend on his body, our readers called to say that members of the special police forces are literally “turning the neighbourhood upside- down" to find the ‘culprit’". (Špic, June 13, 2011) It happens often for a media not to care at all about balanced information or providing space to all interested parties, but also to allow to one of the sides to present the view of the absentee party, usually in a tendentious manner, of course:

“The Public Revenue Office claims that A1 TV management, which was informed timely and precisely about the exact amount of the broadcaster's debt, misleads the editorial team, the journalists and the general public". (Kanal 5, July 8, 2011) It should be noted that, due to newly arising circumstances and the conflicts between the media themselves, some media simply refuse to give statements or information about their competition, something that frequently happens in the political parties' approach vis-à-vis the media. Naturally, that is not an excuse for not seeking a statement, with disclaimer that the request was denied, or to quote other published statements by the interested parties or media. The tendency to fill the existing gap with tendentious journalistic comments or statements by

one of the sides are an additional negative step in those situations, further augmenting the manipulation of viewers and readers.

3.2. Defocusing and Generalisation Frequently used method of distorted media presentation of situations is to defocus a given topic. In such a case, the subject, instead of being covered with quality information and properly explained and analyzed, is extended with other, seemingly related topics which are brought up as forced analogies or causalities. The closure of A1 TV and the newspapers published by “Plus Produkcija” publishing company – Vreme, Špic and Koha e re, and the firing of journalists in Utrinski vesnik was one of those cases with frequent use of such manipulative techniques:

“The reality is that the media in Macedonia will continue to close. I believe that it will go on until the inflated media balloon from the early 1990s (naturally, politically motivated) is finally deflated. There simply can’t be so many newspapers and TV stations for such a small population! For that reason, I will venture the opinion that the fact that media are closing is not all that bad. That for the reasons that it is political and criminal projects that are being shut down!”

(Dnevnik, September 2, 2011)

“Over the past 20 years, media have been shut-down in Macedonia for political and financial reasons. Starting with “Republika” daily, destroyed by the monopolies of the (post)communist government, to “Express” and “Makedonija denes” which succumbed, more or less, to market forces, “Epoha” and “Zbor” weekly magazines, to “Denes”, etc. It was not just “Globus”, “Vreme” and “Špic” that got the short end of the stick in Macedonia! Journalists were fired and will continue to be fired by the owners of "Fokus" and "Forum", "Makfax" and "Nova Makedonija", Alsat TV and Kanal 5 TV, A1 TV and Sitel TV... It is not just the newspapers of WAZ that are “cannibals” turned into an exclusive snack for the journalists’ trade union!" (Dnevnik, July 2, 2011) “The Macedonian Association of Journalists will enter the history of shame as the only journalist association that has itself sued other journalists, naturally, those who are not controlled by SDSM21, while publicly advocating against lawsuits against journalists". (Sitel, July 3, 2011)

3.3. Framing The defocusing has a tendency to insert a series of new information or forced associations in order to lose the accountability and responsibility in the coverage of current events. The framing, on the other hand, uses partial or fragmentary focus on events, in order to exclude, marginalize or distance from the real circumstances and events the meaning and the effect of

21 Hybrid form of defocusing combined with name-calling.

certain factors of essence for those events. The framing suppresses and covers important aspects and issues of importance for reported problems.

One frequently used practice in the analyzed contents, itself a combination of framing and unbalanced reporting, is the so-called "inverted framing", i.e. the decision to air or print the reaction of the favour party first, even make it the lead of the report, and then present the shortened initial information that caused the reaction, inserted in the article:

“The Public Revenue Office reacted to the statement by A1 TV that demanded from the institutions to synchronize their positions on the tax debt in the two separate procedures against the broadcaster. The Public Revenue Office states that the figures are visibly noted in the taxation papers and noted that they see the statements by A1 TV as hypocritical”.

(MTV1, July 8, 2011)

“The taxation procedure for these companies is implemented following the same rules that are valid for all. The multimillion debts of the companies that pursue media activities include amounts the precede the inspection at "Pero Nakov", but most of them are debts determined by the inspection. Any attempt to bring about doubts or polemics about the alleged lack of synchronisation between the institutions of the system is a classic attempt to mislead and misinform the public, something that A1 TV is notorious for, state the press statement issued by the Government". (Sitel, July 8, 2011) The leads to the articles are the most commonly used method for manipulative framing of information. When used in that way, they function to direct the interpretations, favour individual involved entities and impose certain conclusions and views:

“We mentioned the journalists. The so-called independent union of journalists that was made by people whose terms at different office at AJM ended - they can’t live without some official function so they created themselves a trade union - together with AJM, called for a protest by the journalists to demand protection of their rights. There is nothing wrong in it, as it is, the rights of journalists are rather under threat. What can be disputed is who and why called for a protest. The public cannot, and the other colleagues should not protect the rights of the journalists of A1 TV, Špic and Vreme who lost their jobs in these circumstances”. (Sitel, July 3, 2011) “They lost their jobs because their boss stole €9.5 million in taxes. Those are our public money, through A1 TV, as found by a competent state institutions. The Špic, Vreme and Koga e Re dailies stole €1 million in unpaid taxes, plus €1 million in unpaid debts to the printing company that printed the newspapers”. (Sitel, July 3, 2011) “Večer already reported that the file of the potential snitch was registered under the pseudonym "Dramatist". He cooperated with the services for about ten years, starting in 1976. He received no financial compensation, but was compensated with career

advancements. He was first under surveillance of the secret police, and then cooperated with the services. He was charged to provide information on the people from the academic community". (Večer, July 25, 2011) “Kole Čašule and Živko Čingo were victims of the snitch named the Dramatist. Vladimir Milčin ratted them for giving roles to actor Risto Šiškov, who was in prison at the time for political reasons“. (Večer, July 27, 2011) The previous several quotes illustrate, in extreme, the completely distorted position and function of the media in the national communication and information system. The media not only step out of their role as providers of information and cover the information in a way that is far removed from the professional standards, but they take the role of other institutions of the system, declaring guilt of a given party, violating the principle of presumption of innocence but also exerting direct media pressure on the competent institutions and their subsequent decisions.

The framing can execute manipulation that are difficult to register, not to mention decode, by the average viewer or reader. That is especially true of the television, the so-called “fast media”, in which the great majority of articles are shorter than 2 minutes of air-time. Under such time restrictions, the information is dense and selected so to respect the time demands of the genre. That is used for the exact purpose to cover the intentional selection of suitable contents that will follow the line of the journalistic approach to the given topic. In other words, the framing is largely implicit in the television article and the viewers’ attention can be easily led to a specific aspect of the events and suppress other relevant and valid aspects that would help reach a position on the given topic. Therefore, the framing is a powerful and hugely exploited technique by the media in Macedonia. A statistical or quantitative analysis of the media contents could give a clearer picture of that type of manipulation.

3.4. Mixing of information with commentaries One of the most commonly used practices of Macedonian media in the attempts to manipulate the information is to mix the reported information with editorial comments. Different techniques of such “hybridisation” were registered, frequently producing the effect of being accepted as “facts” or framing the article or the story within the media's interpretations. That makes it easier to persuade the public with a practice that steps way out of the principles of professional information.

In television stories, the commentaries were often embedded into the leads:

“For solidarity and dignity of journalistic profession", the journalists held a protest march at five minutes to noon. The firing of journalists from "Utrinski" has been the direct cause of the protest. The trade union and AJM were also concerned about the journalists in Ramkovski’s media, they say. The editor of Špic daily, Branko Gerovski, didn't appear in the protest".

(Kanal 5 TV, July 4, 2011)

In the quote above, we should note the use of perfect tense (has been the cause) instead of past simple (was caused), a linguistic technique to underline the scepticism about the veracity of the presented contents. This technique is often used to indirectly challenge the validity of the information or the positions of the party that is the subject of the report. MTV1 reported the protest, but unlike the other media, it didn’t air footage filmed at the protest itself but chose to present archival footage of the organizers of the protest and the press-conference that announced the protests. That challenges the importance of the protests, covers up the true picture of events, preventing the general public from being professionally informed.

“Unofficially, A1 TV will go with reduced, 10-minutes long flash news, and a number of employees will be sent to mandatory vacations. Is this another attempt at public pressure similar to the use of the so-called Open Studio in front of the Government building, having in mind that there is no possibility for the broadcaster to air such a news format. For months the team of A1 TV continued open-air broadcasts, claiming they don't have proper working conditions, but when their equipment was needed to cover the election campaign, they promptly returned to their studio”. (MTV1, July 2, 2011) Furthermore, the interrogative forms in the headlines are a method that incorporates the commentary into the information in a way designed to introduce scepticism and challenge the validity of information and/or suggest the “true” message:

“Non-political protest march by journalists?”

(Sitel, July 3, 2011)

“So Milčin Claims he was Innocent?”

(Večer, July 26, 2011)

The mixing of commentary into the information could be used to cause a dramatic effect, as in the following example:

“AJM and the Journalists’ trade union decided to rise in protest over the catastrophic situation in the media”.22 (А1, July 2, 2011)

3.5. False Association The false association is a technique of manipulation in which a connection between two terms is intentionally created to produce the desired semantic effect, although in reality the two terms are in real or confirmed causal relation. In a number of cases when the link is only formal or weak, in the manipulation it is underlined, emphasized or intensified:

22 In this particular case, the original phrase was augmented with a more-expressive noun group for dramatic effect. As mentioned in 2.1, page 8, these examples need to be interpreted in the proper context where the editorial approach deviated from the norm due to the involvement of the media in tax and legal procedures against their owners.

“The protests23, according to the information that Sitel TV has and has analyzed, are part of the project Hope, judging from their methodology, the participants and the motivation. It was the use of any elements that could incite to discontent that would produce protests that was the main advice given by the Slovenian PR experts to Crvenkovski in the Project Hope”. (Sitel, June 15, 2011) “A part of the journalistic profession came out to protest the firing of several journalists. However, it is more likely that the protests were organized because of the closure of the print media owned by Velija Ramkovski, who stopped the financial support for his newspapers". (MTV1, July 4, 2011) “It should be noted that it was that same Soros Foundation and SDSM that have controlled, financially and in terms of the human resources, the A1 TV and the newspapers owned by Velija Ramkovski, above all Vreme and Špic dailies, for 15 years. Those media were their weapon used against the political opponents, and often against editorial offices and journalists the didn’t follow SDSM’s and Crvenkovski’s line”. (Večer, July 26, 2011)

3.6. Name Calling (Labelling) The name-calling24 is one of the most commonly used manipulation techniques in the Macedonian media, leading to ignoring and suppressing any argument given by any protagonist of the events because it was presented by an entity that is necessarily construed and presented as negative or invalid. The labelling conducts the manipulation through imposing on the readers and viewer an approach to the contents that follows the formula that "it is not important what was said, but who said it”.

Examples off labelling, combined with false or forced association, were registered in the following examples:

“The political motivation exposed the organizers that have risen, over the past several days, as informal leaders of the protests. Most of them a people close to or a part of nongovernmental organisation that have cooperated with SOROS and Vladimir Milčin for years”.

(Sitel, June 15, 2011)

“New action by journalists close to Soros and SDSM. They demand protests because of the fact that the media of Velija Ramkovski, which defrauded over €10 million from the citizens for the benefit of their owner, now face bankruptcy and the journalists face unemployment. It is well known that, for decades, the Association of Journalists have been controlled, both financially and in terms of its personnel, by the Soros

23 Note: This refers to the protests in the “Martin Neškovski” case. 24 Also known as the „Ad Hominem“ pseudo-argumentation.

Foundation and SDSM. The Association was led by editors and journalists the were, without exception, close to SDSM and (Branko) Crvenkovski".

(Sitel, July 3, 2011)

“Mirka Velinovska, Milenko Nedelkovski and Boban Nonković, journalist that have views on the situation in the media quite different from the views of Jovanovski and Sekulovska, were prevented from presenting their opinion. They were prevented from participating in the panel-discussion. They were put into a position to be silent observers of the positions on Macedonian journalism to be presented by their colleagues, the journalists that are considered a part of the Soros' clan in Macedonia". (Večer, September 22, 2011)

3.7. Paralogism The paralogism is a manipulation technique that consists of making a seemingly logical conclusion that could function as logical only when viewed from a specific and isolated view-point. Should we put the topic or the question at hand in the wider causal context, it becomes clear that it was an attempt at semantic and logical manipulation.

“So, now what? The politics has created thousands of journalists in hundreds of media and it is politics that started to destroy them! Nothing could be more logical and more legitimate!” (Dnevnik, July 2, 2011)

3.8. Exchangeability by Proximity In the four presented cases and the used methods of distortion of information, we recorded different examples off linguistic manipulation of replacement by proximity, from various types that include metonymic and synecdoche replacement at the linguistic level with serious implications on the interpretation of information.

"Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski apologized two days after the murder, while SDSM announced that the murderer was once member of party security”. (Dnevnik, June 9, 2011) In this case, the expressed “lamentation for the loss and the compassion for the family” was replaced with “apology”, which distorts the true reported situation.

3.9. Expert authority The list of used manipulation techniques should include the use of “expert authority", a method that allows placement of contents along the lines of intentional placement of information. In Macedonian media there is the rule that an opinion should be asked from an expert in a given area only if their is high degree of predictability of his or her views. When the degree of anticipation is high, the views of experts are instrumentalized by the media to achieve the goal of the editorial office. The reliance on certain foreign experts, under the cover of ideological closeness (conservative, liberal, leftists, etc.) has been turned into a

rhetoric instrument in the internal political competition that necessarily takes place in the media: “American analyst Umberto Pascali sees the protests over the death of Martin Neškovski as a propaganda war in which the people are used as cannon fodder. This American experts, well informed about the developments in the region and in Macedonia, explains how the operation is conducted as a war of information. - The use the major bodies of the Western powers, from the British “Economist” and different branches of Soros (financial power), to the Anglo-American intelligence services (Voice of America) and the entities that control the internet (Google).” (Večer, June 13, 2011)

4. CONCLUSION

The analysis of the manipulation techniques used by Macedonian media lead to several conclusions that should be used for a systemic and in-depth dealing with the anomalies in Macedonian media scene. Their primary function is to help realize the actions that have negative effects on the quality of information and result in the dramatic drop of public confidence in the Macedonian media. The media are, in a sense, a mirror of the levels of democratic development of the society, therefore, this situation should cause alarm and engage all active actors because of the importance of the media and their potential to influence the other processes in the country. The general conclusion is that the deviations from the rules of professional information through use of different manipulation techniques has grown to dramatic levels. There is no clear distinction between the commercial and the public sector. The public broadcasting service, through use of a series of different techniques, doesn’t offer a professional example of reporting and often takes the lead in terms of use of manipulation techniques, depending on the covered topic. The more relevant the topic is for the political and social reality, the greater is the reliance on different manipulation techniques. The inventory of manipulation techniques, although used frequently and intensively, is not all that diverse. The relatively low level of media literacy of the general public encourages the editors and journalists to use tested techniques in the attempt to impose their views and interpretations of events. They use that limited “arsenal” of instruments of manipulation to pressure the public in order to satisfy the interests and back the views of political centres of power. That practice of polarized and unprofessional reporting greatly favour the government, which has more resources and instruments available to impose its interests. We could add that the media have shown that they can provide professional and quality reporting on topics that are not directly related to certain political and economic spheres. This leads to the conclusion that, if political pressure was neutralized and fair market conditions for the media were secured, putting the priority on the quality of work and not political suitability, there are the necessary conditions for revival and increased level of work in Macedonia.