Fake news connected to the "struggle" in the Middle East "involving terrorist organizations" could put the whole country "in very serious danger", the foreign minister said.
Mass migration, terrorism, hybrid threats, fake news and growing nationalism in Ukraine were in focus at the event
There’s no such thing as a presumption of innocence when it comes to charges of corruption and allegations of misuse of EU funds in Hungary – at least for much...
The government of Viktor Orbán opposes illegal immigration, with broad, popular support, and that’s why it opposes Mr Soros’s efforts to push his immigration plan, Hungary's government spokesperson said
Sometimes, you just can’t make this stuff up. Over the course of last week, two prominent media sources have run pieces featuring flat-out denials that the Soros plan exists.
Earlier this week, I took a question from a journalist about the referendum on the independence of Catalonia. The government of Hungary has not taken a position on that, and I gave a general answer emphasizing precisely that point – that it is a matter of the internal politics of Spain, adding that the will of the people should be respected within the bounds of the rules.
Some media outlets seem to think that their proper role is not simply to report the news but to exert influence over public life by driving a political agenda. Perhaps all media organizations reflect a bias, but when a political agenda so dominates the media’s decision about what to cover and how to cover it that it completely undermines all objectivity and journalistic integrity, then we have a problem.
In this new series, I’d like to show you how the media – sometimes because of sloppy, one-sided reporting that fails to get the facts right and other times because of biased journalism intent on driving a particular narrative – produces fake news about Hungary.
Amnesty International has just released its annual report called “The State of the World’s Human Rights.” This once-lauded international human rights organization was founded in 1961 as an advocate for the prisoner of conscience, those “imprisoned, tortured or executed because [of their] opinions or religion.” Amnesty is a far cry from that today.