Wrote: Etrit Rexhepi
In Kosovo, it is a growing practice for politicians to label inaccurate reporting about them as “fake news” or “disinformation.” Even when the denial is accurate, these labels are often unfounded and risk delegitimizing the media, complicating public debate.
Fact-checking platforms are those that verify content and provide ratings for it, depending on the rating methodology. This applies to both misinformation and disinformation content. Hibrid.info is an example of a platform that aims to combat forms of information disorder. Ratings on this platform are based on verifying claims published in the media and establishing the relevant facts.
For some content covered by hibrid.info, in some cases, denials from various institutions and organizations have also been taken as facts (see here, here, here). A growing phenomenon has been observed in the denials made by various politicians in Kosovo regarding incorrect content (see here, here, here, here and here).
In addition to denying and clarifying the truth in these reactions, political and institutional officials provide assessments of the content that they claim is untrue, describing it as fake news, disinformation, slander, and propaganda.
What do the research articles say?
A research article titled "Fake news as a two-dimensional phenomenon" (in Albanian, Fake News as a Two-Dimensional Phenomenon) by Egelhofer & Lecheler (2019) states that the term "fake news" is used for two different things, which must be clearly distinguished.
"Fake news" as genre is produced with the intention of deceiving. So, the goal is disinformation and not accidental error. Fake news looks like real journalism, has the form, style, and structure of a professional news story, even though it is false.
This content also aims to influence, has a political, economic, social or emotional purpose. According to this definition, content assessed as error, clickbait or satire is not “fake news” (see here).
"Fake news" as a label It is used by political actors to delegitimize certain media outlets, to dismiss factual news, to create doubt and confusion, and to attack political opponents.
So, a politician can call even accurate reporting “fake news” just to undermine trust in the media. According to the article, this dimension is rhetorical, strategic, and often dangerous for democracy, because it undermines trust in sources of information.
In another article titled "It's nothing but a deepfake! The effects of misinformation and deepfake labels delegitimizing an authentic political speech” (in Albanian, The effects of “misinformation” and “deepfake” labels on the delegitimization of authentic political discourse) by M. Hameleers & F. Marquart (2023), published in the “International Journal of Communication”, shows that various actors, politicians, alternative media or interest groups, often accuse mainstream media, experts or political opponents of spreading “misinformation”, “disinformation” or “fake news”. This article also reiterates that these accusations by politicians function as delegitimization labels, intended to make people distrust authentic information.
The article also focuses on the label “fake news” as a discursive tactic to accuse others of hiding reality or manipulating the public. Misinformation refers to inaccurate information without the intention of deceiving, while disinformation refers to the intentional dissemination of false or manipulated information (see here*).
Paradoxically, the article says that these accusations by politicians, when false, can themselves be considered a form of disinformation. In many cases, there is no evidence or expertise to support these labels, and they often appear as a tactic to accuse the media and political elites of lying to the public.
Research shows that accusations of disinformation reduce public trust in the targeted media. Meanwhile, labels of misinformation can be more subtle and persuasive as a delegitimization strategy. Even this type of labeling of accurate information can increase skepticism and reduce message acceptance.
Cases in Kosovo
In the cases of examples encountered in Kosovo, the denial of the published content is fair and well-founded, as the headlines and reporting in the cases mentioned by politicians do not clearly reflect the truth. Correcting these inaccuracies is necessary and useful for informing the public.
However, the assessment of this content as “Disinformation” and “fake news” is wrong. The terms used by politicians in Kosovo imply that the denied content was published intentionally to deceive the public. For this reason, the use of such labels may not be the most adequate definition in all cases.
An example that hibrid.info covered is the reaction of Mytaher Haskuka, a political official from the Vetëvendosje Movement. Haskuka had denied an article that claimed that an arrested person with the same last name as him was his family member. The former mayor of Prizren had described that claim as fake news.
However, hibrid.info, after handling this content, assessed the claim as “Unverified Content”, which refers to those informative contents that do not provide sufficient information to confirm the claims made in the report, and which could not be verified due to certain circumstances (speed, lack of sources) during the publication of the content (meaning that we are not dealing with intentional deception) (see here).
Therefore, in the absence of evidence of fraudulent intent, the most accurate assessment would be to treat these cases as inaccuracies, misinterpretations, or lack of context. This approach helps maintain professional standards of public communication and avoids the use of unnecessarily delegitimizing labels.
Although refutation and clarification of information are necessary, the use of labels such as “misinformation” or “fake news” should be done with caution and in accordance with professional criteria. Fact-checking platforms are those that, based on their methodologies, provide structured and impartial assessments of content suspected of inaccuracy, misinformation or disinformation. This approach helps maintain clarity, accuracy and credibility in public communication, avoiding unnecessary or unfounded labeling.