We live in a world saturated with information and often the quantity of information is at the expense of quality. Today, we are in a situation where not only our political beliefs, but also our health and life depend on truthful information. In the podcast Disinfo Report, Tonka Zsigmondová speaks with Michal Piško, Director of Transparency, about the perception of corruption scandals and the public’s vulnerability to disinformation.
My guest today is Michal Piško. Hello.
Hello, thank you for the invitation.
Corruption is one of the most pressing problems for young democracies and in many cases prevents them from a successful transition. How have we dealt or failed to deal with corruption in Slovakia? Is this topic communicated enough nowadays?Transparency International Slovakia has been active in Slovakia for almost a quarter of a century, and we have been working on the topics of corruption and increasing transparency. Two years ago, we wrote a book about our work, The Power of Corruption. It summarises all our involvement and monitoring of corruption cases as well as our involvement in detecting and combating them through various instruments, from legislation, to investigations and so on. We also tried to answer the question of where we stand in terms of corruption. We have come to a perhaps somewhat provocative conclusion, but we think that Slovakia reached the peak of corruption in the 1990s. Partly because the state has significantly less impact on our daily lives now than it did twenty years ago. At that time, the state owned a much larger volume of state property and various state companies and granted many more permits and prohibitions. Since then, public administration has indeed undergone a major change. Many state-owned enterprises have been privatised, and it is much easier to find work in the private sector or abroad, for example, than it was in the 1990s.
People are no longer so dependent on the state, which then reduces the scope for corruption. And yet another perspective – if we take, for example, the list of the current richest businessmen in Slovakia, among whom there are also people who did business with the state, the core of their wealth is mostly based in the nineties and not in the last ten or fifteen years.
Corruption in Slovakia is not as huge as it was in the 1990s. This does not mean, of course, that there are not major corruption cases or massive abuses of power, just look at the huge level of state capture that began to be revealed after the murders of J. Kuciak and M. Kušnírová. But it is also true to say that we have seen some progress over the last period, for example in the most cited corruption perception ranking published by Transparency International’s headquarters in Berlin. It evaluates the situation in 180 countries around the world and Slovakia has managed to move up eleven places in the last two years and is currently in 49th place. This also indicates some improvement in the fight against corruption, but there is still a huge margin. If we compare this with the European Union alone, for example, there are only seven countries behind us and all the others ahead of us.
In some ways, the state has indeed managed to move forward. Many anti-corruption instruments and legislation have been adopted, and in some respects, there has been a big change just after the murders of Ján Kuciak and Martina Kušnírová, when the hands of the law enforcement authorities were really loosened, and corruption started to be punished much more radically. However, we are still lagging behind in some respects. This government, which has made the fight against corruption its main theme, has also failed to deliver on many of its plans. We have failed to reform the prosecution office; we have failed to strengthen the independence of police inspection. We can see the controversies caused by the application of Section 363 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and how prosecutors then must deal with the reservations of the Prosecutor General, even in major corruption cases, when it comes to people like Zoroslav Kollár, Mr Brhel, or Mr Haščák, or even former politicians like former Prime Minister Fico, former Minister Robert Kaliňák, former Minister Peter Kažimír, and so on.
The government’s ability to act is also undermined by constant bickering and disputes and partly by this incompetence – so many things have not been improved, although we do see significant progress in the investigation itself.
You commissioned a public opinion poll that combined two interesting topics – public perception of corruption scandals and the public’s vulnerability to disinformation. What were the results of the survey?
We tried to do a basic mapping of the situation. The topic of disinformation has been dealt with by several media and NGOs, people with expertise, but no one has looked in detail at how the topics of rule of law, fight against corruption, independent institutions and so on are dealt with in this environment.
We tried to find out what people’s views are in a representative survey conducted by Focus in early February with a sample of over 1,000 respondents. Our aim is also to analyse the content of both mainstream and alternative media. It was interesting to learn that 60% of respondents say they get their information from the traditional media when it comes to topics such as the fight against corruption or corruption scandals and the rule of law, which is a relatively high proportion. Another 6% say that alternative media is their main source of information on these topics, 17% cited various social media influencers or influential figures, and 13% cited family and friends. That makes roughly one third of people who get their information from sources other than the traditional mainstream media. And this of course creates a greater space to spawn misinformation.
On one hand people say they perceive or get their information mainly from the traditional media, and to yet another question they reply that mostly media and anti-corruption NGOs just like Transparency are relevant sources of information for them on these issues, but at the same time they are often not very well informed. For the topics mentioned above, the survey showed that people are often unable to look at issues of corruption and the rule of law separately, and often view them through their own prism of frustration and dissatisfaction with the government they dislike.
This is evident in the responses. We also asked about factual things, how people perceive them. For example, whether they think that the proportion of bribing people has been going down or up since the last election in 2020. In the survey, people say they think, or most people are inclined to think, that the number of bribes is rising. And yet all the other surveys that we have been doing for a long time show that fewer and fewer people state they have come across bribing practices. When people talk about their experience, the answer is different than when they talk about their perception of the situation across the country.
The same was true for other topics, e.g. when the respondents were asked whether corruption cases had become more frequent since the last elections in 2020. Again, the majority of people were inclined to agree that there are generally more corruption scandals. The thing is we do see these cases in the media on a daily basis, but at the same time they are overwhelmingly related to the previous government. They are older cases under investigation, not current corruption cases, whose number is now significantly lower than in the past.
Similarly, when it comes to the corruption perception ranking, in which Slovakia has managed to improve – people in the survey are inclined to believe that the situation in Slovakia is getting worse rather than better in terms of perception of corruption. On one hand, most people tend to draw information from more relevant or factual sources, but on the other hand, the perception of the facts themselves is often at odds with reality.
Parliamentary elections are coming up. An increase in the communication of corruption-related topics can also be expected. What topics will it be?
First of all, we can expect to see the continuation of the battle over the interpretation of the investigation of corruption scandals and abuse of power, but this has been going on since the last parliamentary elections. It is a question of perhaps even the survival of some politicians and representatives of the former government. These topics are communicated very aggressively. Often, they seek to undermine the conclusions of investigations, to cast doubt on cooperating defendants and witnesses. This will continue because it is a central theme of the political struggle.
At the same time, it is a game with fire, because it results in great undermining of institutions and of people’s trust in institutions, in the judiciary, in the rule of law, in the independence of investigations. This is an extremely negative effect, intensifying on the political spectrum as well as in the media. In addition to the wider negative implications, this can have considerably negative effects on the investigation itself. We see that some politicians, especially from the party Smer, often threaten investigators and prosecutors and suggest abolishing the specialised court and the special prosecutor’s office, which are in charge of combating organised crime and fighting corruption.
It can undermine the efforts of law enforcement authorities and the judiciary to deal with state capture and corruption, and it can, in a way, set us back years. It will be one of the key themes of the election campaign and the elections themselves, shaping what will happen after the elections. Of course, it may also happen that people directly involved in state capture and corruption schemes, such as Mr Kaliňák, Mr Gašpar, Mr Fico and others, will return to high positions.
Are there differences between how corruption cases are communicated by standard actors and, for example, by the disinformation scene or alternative media?
We want to map this topic within a project supported by the European Media Information Fund. We are happy to cooperate with Infosecurity on this project. Preliminary observations show that the scene is indeed remarkably diverse; nowadays, it is far from being just about the so-called alternative media. A few years ago, we often talked about actors such as various portals or media like Hlavné správy, Zem a Vek, InfoVojna or Slobodný vysielač and others.
Today, politicians themselves are also highly active players, spreading various narratives related to the above-mentioned topics via social media. Various other influential figures have become media through social networks, with alternative media often quoting them and adopting their content and narratives. There are some features you can observe at a glance with alternative media. For example, they essentially never open new cases based on their own findings and mainly react to what the so-called mainstream media write and broadcast. To a large extent, they uncritically adopt the narratives of figures whose opinions they share, and it is common practice to take entire statuses or press releases of politicians with similar opinions.
They often very strongly and emotionally personalise the themes of corruption scandals, the rule of law and democratic institutions. The use of Section 363 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which is also addressed in the mainstream media, resonates strongly on the alternative spectrum. The latter often portrays this topic through the main players such as Attorney General Maroš Žilinka – defender of the rule of law, or the President Zuzana Čaputová – selling out Slovakia.
Other symptoms common to misinformation on other topics follow from this approach. Often various conspiracy theories are bandied about, with no evidence to back them up. Inducing fear and sense of threat is also quite common, same as cherry-picking only information that serves their intention to create a sight they want to present. Dehumanisation, the use of insulting and derisive names, whether of people or of authorities, is emerging. There are not many differences between disinformation on the topics of corruption and the rule of law and disinformation on other topics such as the war in Ukraine or the pandemic.
Traditional or mainstream media more often try to report factually, based on more substantiated arguments, but of course this is not without errors. There are even cases of personal views leaking into the news. Again, this is a problematic topic, and probably everyone is a little prone to such practice. It requires the greatest degree of professionalism and editorial schemes to ensure that risks in the media are mitigated as much as possible.
We should also mention the opposite side of the political spectrum – Smer and its representatives, who communicate most intensively on the topics of the rule of law and corruption scandals, because they are directly affected by them – they are often involved in them, it is a central topic for them. And then there are various mistakes made by the other side of the political spectrum, which often communicates these issues through social media and then is quoted by various other media or websites. For example, the famous matching pairs game by Veronika Remišová, where she was crossing out corrupt representatives of the former political establishment. Politicians should be more restrained in such behaviour; they should avoid goading the society when whoever gets accused or arrested. Especially when it comes to former politicians or high-ranking officials.
The government has little to do with the charges and arrests – it has merely untied the hands of law enforcement authorities. That is not a small thing, but investigations and arrests as such are no credit of the government. Just on the contrary, such views promote a sense of a hunt for the opposition. This creates a space shaping the way the opposition and alternative media treat these issues. Nor should the opposition claim with each arrest that it is intended just to make ado and political pressure on investigators. It is natural that appointees of former governments are arrested – they were in power and may have abused it, who else? Questioning the independence of law enforcement undermines confidence in the rule of law and sparks more and more conspiracies.
What role does misinformation play in the communication of corruption scandals? Can it be considered as a tool to distract citizens?
The rule of law is a frequent topic in the alternative media or disinformation scene, but this was not so much the case in the past. The issue has come to the centre of public and media attention after 2018. This has also been reflected in the disinformation scene and in the environment of alternative media and other actors.
Major corruption cases have become the subject of a bitter political struggle, spilling over into this type of media. These topics are risky in terms of spreading misinformation. They are considerably complicated; an ordinary person is not able to judge, based on the media coverage, the veracity of the claims made by the various actors. For example, we have already mentioned the Section 363 – these are complicated legal debates and arguments. We do not even know all the reasoning, all the details, and it can be overly complicated for an ordinary citizen to make a judgement or any valid final opinion. It is much easier to build different theories on these topics. All the more so when the Attorney General’s action is not even contrary to the law, since the current wording of the law empowers him to act as he did.
Although the government wanted to revise the application of Section 363, this did not happen. They could not agree on this within the coalition. The Attorney General continues to use this controversial tool. It cannot be regarded en bloc as explicitly harmful; we know from the past that there have been serious failures in the police, the prosecution office and the courts, including corruption, major misconduct or cover-ups of various misdemeanours. After such experience, it is essential that the police, the prosecution and the judiciary are also under public scrutiny, so that there are tools to correct misconduct or malpractice by the authorities. But should it work the way it works today from the Attorney General’s perspective? It is extremely hard to directly indicate disinformation on these topics, we cannot say that easily discoverable, false, misleading information is being spread about corruption scandals or cases related to the rule of law. These are often softer ways of manipulating the facts, hiding behind the formula that it is a different legal opinion.
Is it possible to see the first harbingers of communication of corruption cases even today? What are the topics?
In recent years, we have observed that these topics are indeed appearing more and more frequently in alternative media, reflecting the situation in society as a whole. This can be clearly seen, for example, not only with the Section 363, which is very widely represented in the alternative media, but also on the topic of cooperating defendants – the so-called penitents.
Or on the subject of the death of ex-police chief Milan Lučanský. It has been two years since it happened, the investigation has been completed, and yet it is still being largely discussed, especially in the alternative scene. What is interesting about this case is that misinformation about it was also spread through the mainstream – when the daily Pravda published an uncritical interview with former journalist Milan Žitný shortly after Lučanský’s death. Pravda approached him about the case as a security analyst, even though he was a close friend of Mr Lučanský. At that time, he leaked information to the media that the guards had brutally beaten Mr Lučanský, failing to substantiate this information with anything and to give the sources of this information. Subsequently, although Pravda apologized for its unprofessionalism, the conspiracy immediately began to spread, taking on a life of its own. More layers were added to it, with “All for Milan” badges appearing on social media, emulating the “All for Jan” initiative that followed the deaths of Ján and Martina.
It was a fertile ground for various theories, conspiracies and disinformation. Investigating such cases takes a long time, and we usually do not know the details very well. Not everything can be made public, and with things related to the penitentiary system complete transparency is not possible. Bizarre interpretations have begun to emerge that Interior Minister Roman Mikulec was the mastermind of Mr Lučanský’s murder and that if Mr Lučanský had not been killed and had testified about everything he knew about Daniel Lipšic, the latter would have been sentenced to life imprisonment, and so on. It has spread widely and continues spreading to some extent even now.
The case has also become a very central topic in the alternative media, for example, Hlavné správy have brought more than 600 articles about it. Hlavný denník over 500. It was more than in the mainstream media. The theme still resonates today, for example in the latest issue of the conspiracy magazine Zem a Vek – a whole double page spread in the last issue. The headline explicitly states that Mr Lučanský’s death was definitely a planned political assassination, but the article itself offers no evidence of a political assassination plan. It consists of many questions designed to raise doubts, repeating various alleged inconsistencies – e.g. the impossibility of committing suicide with a tracksuit jacket. Despite the fact that this issue has already been given much media coverage and has also been dealt with the task force that reviewed the circumstances of the case. The prosecution office has closed the case, but it lives on vigorously in the alternative media environment.
This year we have commemorated several tragic anniversaries – more than five years have passed since the murder of Ján Kuciak and Martina Kušnírová. Can this event be seen as the moment when the themes of corruption and disinformation became critically intertwined? What have we learned over the years?
Corruption cases and abuse of power have always been a fertile ground for various conspiracies, including in the past. By the very nature of things, we often do not really know much about corruption. We can only see the top or tip of the iceberg, and what is happening beneath the surface often remains hidden. Actors of corrupt behaviour have a strong incentive to keep details hidden. Just remember the big cases from the past, such as Gorilla or Mečiar’s amnesties, or the financing of political parties such as Smer or SDKÚ. See how much has been written about these scandals! And yet to this day, the public does not know all the facts, nor has justice been served.
But after the murders of Ján and Martina in 2018, the interconnection has become even more pronounced. Probably everyone remembers the defensive tactics of the then Prime Minister Fico, who claimed the protests Za slušné Slovensko (For a decent Slovakia) were a plot by Soros aimed to remove Fico from power. Investigations after the murders revealed a vast scale of state capture, abuse of power and corruption that surprised even the most hardened ones. This has also strengthened the link between the aforementioned topics and disinformation. Serious findings with implications for the interests of powerful politicians, various oligarchs and influential people, but also mistakes in investigations and the over-politicisation of some of the scandals, are also causing a strong backlash.
A part of the political spectrum has tried to cast doubt on all the cases by talking about political order. As I mentioned earlier, these narratives have been widely taken up in alternative media and by other actors. Thus, there has been a much stronger linking of topics with conspiracies or disinformation narratives.
The key is to ensure that despite the heated debate in the media, whether mainstream or alternative, the cases are thoroughly investigated. To eventually bring them to justice and have them fairly adjudicated by a court of law. It is the only way to deal with the state capture legacy. Otherwise, society will remain divided, and these topics will remain open. In terms of information – you certainly need to be critical. As I said before, we have a lot of experience of both failures and corruption within law enforcement authorities, and criticism is certainly warranted. But it is important to approach it responsibly and with respect for the facts. Not just on the basis of various conspiracies and emotional statements of politicians without any factual ground. This then leads to what we have been talking about today – the huge danger of undermining the rule of law and its institutions.
The podcast was prepared by Peter Dubóczi. This episode was produced with the support of the European Media and Information Fund.
We thank to our volunteer Tatiana Weissová for transcribing the audio-recording of the podcast.