Online Media Coverage of Legal Issues /1-15 March/

From 1 to 15 March, 2019, online media coverage of legal issues was in the spotlight of “Media Advocate” initiative. 34 leading news agencies have been monitored. The articles were selected through international analytical programs.

3 categories were selected: News / Analysis / Opinion

In addition, the materials have also been segmented as negative / positive / neutral

The articles that do not contain legal arguments and are not comprehensive are negative, the ones that include legal justification are positive and finally those with versatile coverage and containing information that does not favor any side are neutral.

Attention has been focused on the articles and topics that have received publicity or have been part of political processes.

During the specified period, 4937 articles were monitored.

The graph (See gr. 1) illustrates the image obtained by combining the results of selected categories and segments. The chart represents the X and Y coordinate axis, where the horizontal coordinate is the segment (positive / negative / neutral), and the vertical one is the category (news / analysis / opinion). During the calculations positive and analytic identifiers were marked with (+), negative and comment (-) signs, neutral and news with (0) number.

Monitoring results continue to be disturbing. Despite the changes in the ranking, media coverage of legal issues continues to be biased. It is also interesting that the government officials keep repeating that they do not do propaganda or antipropaganda, but as shown by the graph and the rating given below, the government and the news agencies close to the government mostly have an average or even lower rating.

We present the ratings of the news agencies according to their rankings, where the news agency ranked under 1 is considered to have the best result of the month, while the one with the worst outcome is placed under 34.

Unbiased coverage ratings



P.S. The “Media Advocate” initiative will continue to focus on the events; in particular, any encroachment and biased approach to freedom of expression will be harshly assessed.