From inbox to front page: How the media fuels hate speech in North Macedonia
Photo featuring the term ‘hate speech’ in Albanian, generated with artificial intelligence in Canva by the Portalb.mk team. Used with permission.
This article by Despina Kovachevska was originally published by Meta.mk. An edited version is republished here under a content-sharing agreement between Global Voices and Metamorphosis Foundation.
The deputy prime minister for good governance policies of North Macedonia, Arben Fetai, announced on his Facebook profile that he received a death threat on his official email on November 8, 2024. In less than half a day, media outlets reported on his status along with verbatim hate speech quotes in the headlines of their articles, writes Portalb.mk.
This is not the first time the media has carelessly published politicians’ statements without critically analyzing them, using the situation to generate sensationalism and boost their viewership. Such journalism has numerous harmful consequences, and in this case, it has only amplified and spread the hateful message promoting killing of members of an ethnic group throughout the media.
The news was first published on Alsat quoting the entire threatening message in the article’s title, without providing any context or critical view of the event.
Screenshot of media article containing direct quote of hate speech in the headline: “BULLET IN THE HEAD FOR YOU SHIPO FETAI” / Deputy PM Arben Fetai's life threats.”
Anti-Albanian hate speech often uses the term “shiptar” or variants, like “shipo,” which is based on debasement for the Albanian term for Albanian, “shqiptar.” It is considered derogatory in a similar manner to the N-word in the US.
On the media aggregator Time.mk, one can see that out of several articles that report on the event, half of them contain the same threatening message in the title and thus fuel hate speech even more, especially in the comments below the news.
Although most media outlets do this to get clicks, this practice contributes to hate messages becoming dominant in the media sphere, increasing the risk of supporting negative and dangerous tendencies in society.
Hate speech is an increasingly common phenomenon on the internet, especially in comments on social media. Media outlets, instead of critically reporting on this phenomenon, are becoming the main spreaders of such messages.
This is the second instance of hate speech within one week conveying the same message, this time scrawled on the wall of a building in front of the Constitutional Court of North Macedonia in Skopje. Although the graffiti was removed by November 1, after the Portalb.mk team alerted the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the situation became much more complicated online.
Hate speech graffiti in Skopje, North Macedonia, with the text ‘DEAD SHIPTAR!!!’ painted across the entrance of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of North Macedonia. Photo by Portalb.mk, used with permission.
While the swift response from institutions is a positive example of taking action against the spread of hate in physical spaces, the lack of regulation in the digital realm remains a significant issue.
In the online realm, aggressive and harmful expressions of hatred and misinformation often remain unpunished for extended periods, with mechanisms for swift removal being notably inadequate. What is lacking are concrete and effective strategies to monitor and eliminate harmful content on the internet. While laws and regulations, such as the Digital Services Act, can help manage this area, they also require active participation from social media platforms and society as a whole in the battle against hate and misinformation online.
The media plays a key role in polarizing societies
Frequently repeating the same message can have negative effects, particularly in media coverage during emotionally charged and politically divided times. When society is polarized, the media are often compelled to take sides or favor one narrative over another, which can further entrench preexisting divisions.
In such conditions, the media should take responsibility for balancing narratives and work to reduce divisions by focusing on constructive dialogue, fact-checking and objective reporting. It is also important to develop mechanisms that will protect the media from political or economic influence and encourage journalists to commit to ethical reporting.
The media are not merely messengers of information; they serve as interpreters and curators, selecting and framing content to help audiences make sense of complex issues.
The media landscape in the Western Balkans is highly polarized, with close ties between media ownership and political elites fostering an environment where investigative journalism is rare, and self-censorship is pervasive. These dynamics significantly undermine the media's role as a democratic watchdog, limiting its capacity to hold power accountable and promote informed public discourse. Instead of challenging entrenched power structures, many media outlets serve as tools for political propaganda or profit-driven sensationalism.
No meaningful response to hate speech
Hate speech, both online and in public spaces, remains a pressing issue in the region. Despite the existence of legislation criminalizing hate speech, institutional responses are often inadequate. Enforcement is inconsistent, selective, or entirely absent, which emboldens perpetrators and allows harmful rhetoric to permeate public discourse unchecked.
In our experience, despite reporting multiple instances of cybercrimes involving hate speech, we have received no meaningful response or action from relevant institutions. This lack of accountability not only undermines trust in the system but also enables hate speech to flourish, further polarizing society and marginalizing vulnerable groups.
Hate speech coming from the media has a major impact on everyday life, as the media not only shapes public opinion and attitudes but also influences social values, policies, and identities. When the media spreads hate speech or reinforces divisions, it can have serious consequences.
Such speech is harmful to society and can manifest itself in different ways, from direct insults and discrimination to less visible forms of hatred, such as microaggressions and stereotyping. It can often have a destructive effect on individuals, communities, and the whole of society.