“Disinformation was the cause of death threats!”

In your role as Chair of the Parliamentary Inquiry Commission, which investigates alleged illegal financing of political parties and party political propaganda in the media, you are confronted with multiple disinformation attacks. How would you describe them?

First, I have to say that already in my previous term, when I was an MP for a year and three months, I often became the target of various attacks. These attacks were meant to portray me as a completely incompetent person. For women, this is especially pronounced – you are often labeled as crazy, accused of having psychiatric problems, and so on. During that time, I developed somewhat thicker skin, so perhaps I am less sensitive to these things today, but the fact remains that they are present.

What is happening now, however, I see as a change – and a change for the worse. I’m not speaking only for myself, but in general. From the disinformation I mentioned, attacks on women most often focus first on appearance, then on alleged psychiatric illnesses, and finally on political affiliation – being called a “commie,” a leftist, in a derogatory sense. What I have noticed in this second term, especially after the most high-profile hearings, is that all of this has escalated into serious death threats.

It is no longer just insults or mockery, but concrete descriptions of what is supposedly going to happen to me. That worried me – and I’m not speaking only about my own case, but about a broader trend in society. I see that this is escalating, that these incitements and fabrications are part of a larger web. In such social circumstances, I fear we are already very close to the point where something truly bad will happen to someone.

So the sources of disinformation and the sources of death threats were not the same?

It is certainly not always the same source, but rather a broader group influenced by the same origin. These disinformation narratives come from a single source that has a specific audience. In a way, they justify hatred and even actions that someone might commit against the person targeted by this information.

The matter spreads across different platforms, though the content is similar. On each platform, the specific tools are used. I am not very present there myself – for example, on TikTok I don’t know exactly what is happening, except when someone forwards something to me, since I don’t follow it directly. But the pattern is always the same. On X, this often appears after hearings, and not from anonymous users, but from sources we know – people close to the so‑called media.

From there, a cluster forms: my name is quickly added, and the whole thing starts spreading, being retweeted, with a multitude of different profiles amplifying it further. It grows to unimaginable proportions. One part of it are the constant insults – where you’re from, what you want, that you’re paid, a “commie” – this nonsense you hear all the time. In addition, there are also personal discreditations, even mentions of family.

Then everyone piles onto this cluster with their own comments, following the initial piece of information – even though it isn’t true, but disinformation. Around it, they invent a whole range of additional things. Sometimes these plots are so unbelievable that you could hardly make them up yourself. You simply can’t understand how something like this can even come about.

What strategies of self-defense against disinformation do you use?

I have two very different periods. When I first entered politics, I truly felt a personal responsibility that whenever someone addresses me or asks me, I always respond– even if the question is unpleasant. I was convinced that this was the right thing to do.

Now it’s no longer like that. Now I can say with full certainty and firmness that it is better to leave it alone. Simply not to react and not to respond, because every reaction triggers a new wave of attacks that spread like concentric circles. The same – and this is terrible for me to say as a journalist – applies to corrections. That first thing that gets published causes so much damage that it is almost impossible to repair later. That’s why I can say that the best thing is to ignore it. Even though from the public’s perspective this may not be right, in reality it is what hurts the least.

What other strategies are effective as self-defense against disinformation?

Now, the thing is how willing you are, and in what way you are willing, to be open. Essentially, how ready you are to actually open yourself up. I think this requires a certain amount of courage, but also a readiness to write something very openly.

For me, it has often proven helpful to post a fairly open and honest statement on Facebook. Even though I know Facebook has a specific audience, this has often softened the attacks or created a group of people who stepped in to defend me and responded rationally. In other words, they became proactive once you explained things to them. But you need to know how to write it in the right way for it to be effective.

For me personally, this has a few times turned out to be a good solution. From that platform, it then spread to others as well, for example to X and similar ones. This was one path – you didn’t go on the offensive directly, but you explained. In doing so, however, you had to be very open, to show that you were hurt. And that is rare, and you are not always ready for such exposure.

How would you describe the consequences of disinformation attacks?

Unique, absolutely. The death threat was a direct consequence of this. There was no doubt about it – the threat was very direct, clearly described, and because of that I also had to deal with the police, given the circumstances. I believe that proceedings against the person are underway ex officio.

So this was a direct consequence of what we were talking about. It happened during the same period when the hearings were taking place, at the beginning of the year. At that time, there were really a lot of letters – to my home address, to my work address, by email, on Messenger… you name it.

You mentioned the police. As a society, do we have developed systemic safeguards to protect the victims of disinformation? Did you feel that by reporting the threats to the police you were doing something useful?

Honestly – no. But there is something else that surprised me. Because there were several of these cases and they happened in different places, under different police units, I can’t say there aren’t differences. The standards are not exactly the same. Perhaps that’s difficult, but the feeling is that not everything is treated equally. And then you feel as if it’s nothing serious. Like, well, what now, right?

Especially with letters, it is very unpleasant. You know it’s difficult, because then the criminal investigators come and the whole chain has to be checked for fingerprints – you, your secretary, the postman… everyone. And then you think, is it even worth it. But on the other hand, it’s not right not to report it. I myself didn’t report before, but that’s not right. If something bad ever happens, it’s different if you’ve already reported it beforehand or not.

In the end, it never went as far as an actual trial, these were isolated cases. But every report represents a huge burden. Many colleagues asked me what to do, because they had similar experiences. And it’s always the same – this only happens when you criticize or speak out against SDS. Only then, never against anyone else. And it happens to everyone in the same way.

Then comes the question: what did you do, what should I do? We are public officials, and it’s already difficult for us, let alone for someone who has no idea how to deal with it. I think this is not well regulated. I have always maintained – although perhaps not in strictly professional terms – that in this country we have not done enough in the field of media literacy. Far, far too little. And this is not just a problem for children, it is a problem for adults as well.

Because we don’t really grasp it, we don’t know how to evaluate things, we don’t know how to defend ourselves, we don’t know how to react. This area is very poorly covered. And even though I am part of this government – I am sorry to say, we have done a poor job in this field. Period.

I myself have discovered the importance of personal experience being a good mechanism for countering disinformation attacks. When you meet in person with people who mostly read about you online and you talk with them, they are shocked to see the difference between the real-life experience and the online persona painted by the attackers. What is your opinion?

In all cases, the best thing is a personal contact. But of course, that is very difficult to achieve. Nevertheless, I am convinced that it is one of the best mechanisms to get through this. It was the same, for example, with refugees – when they experienced a contact with them, people saw that things were not as they had imagined.

It is certainly a good mechanism – this direct contact. Now, whether it could be formalized, I don’t know. A face‑to‑face meeting is something completely different. When they don’t know you, you are that terrible person they have written off. But when they meet you, it’s different – “you’re actually okay, I’ll help you.”

But I don’t know how this could be carried out. I think it does work, but in reality it is unfeasible for this to be the only way. It just doesn’t work.

What has surprised you the most in facing disinformation attacks?

I was raised in a certain spirit – as the daughter of a single mother, which perhaps wasn’t entirely typical in the village patterns we live in. And what really surprised me, and continues to surprise me again and again, is that this society is still so deeply patriarchal. As if a woman must be only this or that, and all those who don’t fit into that mold are labeled as sick, unsuitable, or inferior. That really shocked me, because I thought that as a society, even within the former Yugoslavia, we were more progressive. It seemed to me that women had more space.

And then you look at how it is today – a woman who doesn’t fit into those frameworks is subjected to terrible attacks. Even if you are tolerant, open, different, you become a target. That keeps surprising me. I thought we had moved past this a little, that we were broader, more open, but clearly we are not.

Of course, it’s clear that we are entering a new era, globally as well. But when it comes to solutions – I really don’t know. There are so many tools through which all this can spread and amplify that I honestly don’t know what the counter‑weapon is. If they want to attack you, they simply can.

---

More conversations