The announcement of the verdict on September 16 by the Specialist Chambers in The Hague against Hashim Thaçi, Jakup Krasniqi, Kadri Veseli and Rexhep Selim was followed by reports, comments, assessments, interpretations and misinformation.
Given that the trial has been part of the information space for several years, the period before, during and after the announcement of the verdict was also characterized by the publication of content that recalled previous statements by political actors and commentators regarding the Special Court.
Previous speeches in the Kosovo Assembly, parliamentary votes, public statements and old statuses on social networks were among the contents that returned to public attention. Many of them appeared to contradict the current positions of the actors, in the context before and after the announcement of the first instance judgment by the Specialist Chambers.
Old statements in the information space
Among the contents returned were images with the list of deputies who had voted for the establishment of the Special Court, a statement of Prime Minister Albin Kurti in the Kosovo Parliament, where he mentioned one of the victims in the case for which Hashim Thaçi was found guilty, statements Minister Donika Gërvalla's statement that she would send evidence to the Court, as well as previous statuses of opinion leaders Adriatik Kelmendi, Berat Buzhala and Vehbi Kajtazi (see here, here and here).
These contents were brought back to public attention to highlight the previous positions of politicians and commentators towards the Special Court, comparing them with the developments and positions that emerged after the announcement of the first instance verdict. Through them, the previous statements of these actors on the establishment and work of the Court were recalled, highlighting possible inconsistencies with their current positions.
But why are such previous statements being revisited and published?
Revisiting previous statements to question the sustainability of political positions
Such content may be published primarily to compare a politician's previous positions with their current ones and to question their consistency.
According to methodology According to Hibrid.info, the assessment of stability is done by comparing the current views of political actors with those they have previously stated publicly. If the positions on an issue do not change during the public engagement of the monitored person, such statements are assessed as stable. Whereas, if there has been a significant change in positions, they are assessed as unstable.
This comparison can help the public understand how a politician’s positions on a given issue have evolved and whether they have remained the same or changed over time. In this sense, revisiting past statements to compare politicians’ current positions is a legitimate and important practice for public accountability. However, this comparison should take into account the context in which the statements were made and the possible reasons for the change in positions.
When recanting statements can create distorted perceptions
Restatements of prior statements can be misleading when they are presented out of context, leaving out important circumstances, or creating the impression that a prior position necessarily represents a person's current position (see here).
Also, the comparison may be inaccurate if statements referring to different issues are presented as contradictory, without clarifying the differences between them.
Another element to consider is the frequent repetition of old statements that appear to contradict a person's current positions, especially when they are published by pages and accounts that support their political opponents and publish content in favor of the latter. In such cases, their continued publication can reinforce a negative perception of the person in question and favor the positions of their political opponents.
STUDY "The Multiple Exposure Effect" examined the impact of repeated exposure to biased political content. . The findings showed that repeated exposure to content that favored a candidate could influence voting preferences, as well as voters’ perceptions of candidates, including their level of liking and trust in them. This suggests that the continued publication of past statements that appear to contradict a politician’s current positions can reinforce a certain perception of him, especially when this content favors his political opponents.
Therefore, in order to assess whether a comparison of statements is fair and accurate, one must verify not only the veracity of the statements returned, but also the context in which they were given, their meaning and their relationship to the person's current attitudes. The manner and frequency with which these statements are presented to the public must also be taken into account, as their repetition can influence public perception, even when no new information is provided that would justify this interpretation.
When reiterating statements can distract from the main issue
Revisiting previous statements by politicians and commentators can influence the way public debate unfolds on an important event. In the case of a first-instance verdict by the Special Court, attention can shift from the content and reasoning of the decision, the evidence considered and its implications, to the previous positions of political actors and possible inconsistencies with their current statements.
Thus, the discussion about the Special Court could turn into a political clash (see here), where old statements are used to criticize opponents or to support the positions of the political party with which the publishers identify.
The possibility that political communication can divert attention from issues of public importance is also addressed in the study. “Using the President’s Twitter Posts to Understand the Shift in Political Attention in the Social Media Age” (2020).
The study found that posting messages on topics unrelated to an issue that was receiving media attention was followed by a decline in media coverage of that issue. Although the study does not directly address the resurgence of old statements, it provides a benchmark for understanding how media attention can shift away from a major issue.
This is not to say that examining past positions is unimportant, as it can contribute to public accountability. However, when such statements dominate the discussion, the debate risks becoming focused on political squabbles, rather than an informed consideration of the judgment and its significance.
What to consider when restoring old declarations
In conclusion, the restatement of previous statements is not in itself misinforming, but their assessment requires consideration of the context, manner of presentation, and purpose of publication. It is also important to analyze who publishes or distributes this content, in what context, and how often, to understand whether they are intended to inform the public and contribute to accountability, or whether their presentation may create distorted perceptions of a politician’s positions.