Hungary's Sovereignty Protection Office takes a swipe at the media – and, inadvertently, the government as well – over China's vaccines

According to a publication from the European Union, 'disinformation' is verifiably false or misleading information that is created, presented, and disseminated for economic gain or to intentionally deceive the public.

In Hungary, disinformation is considered to be anything that does not coincide with the position of the Hungarian government – this is more or less the conclusion to be drawn from a recent report by the Sovereignty Protection Office.

At least, it would be difficult to interpret otherwise the fact that the agency accused half of Hungary's media of deliberately running a disinformation campaign to discredit the Chinese Sinopharm coronavirus vaccine. The agency's report cites nearly 200 articles from ten media outlets as examples, but it provides almost no specifics as to what is wrong with these articles, why they are considered disinformation, and what claims are regarded as false. The only apparent similarity is that the articles were critical of the government's measures to tackle the pandemic.

The report is worth a closer read – not so much for the subject in question (the Chinese vaccine) but rather because it reveals a lot about the way the Sovereignty Protection Office operates and how it regards this certain sense of sovereignty, the threats it faces, and the media in general.

Protecting sovereignty from independent media

At the end of last year, Hungary's Parliament adopted a law on the protection of sovereignty, which has since prompted the EU to launch infringement proceedings against the country. The law established the Sovereignty Protection Office, headed by Tamás Lánczi. Operating since February 1st with an annual budget of 4.1 billion forints, the agency can investigate essentially anyone it suspects of threatening the nation's sovereignty. As to what exactly constitutes a threat, the law allows for a rather broad interpretation.

Back in November, Minister of the Prime Minister's Office Gergely Gulyás said that the sovereignty protection bill would have no impact on the press. "It doesn't affect editorial freedom or the freedom of the press, so I don't see how the sovereignty protection bill poses any threat to the press," he said. He added that technically, the press could be affected to the extent that the Sovereignty Protection Office (SPO) could, in principle, examine the details of their funding.

However, one of the first substantive actions taken by the SPO was the launch of an investigation against Átlátszó at the end of June. Then, in early July, the agency released an analysis of "Western pro-war and Russian legitimacy narratives in connection with the war in Ukraine" within the Hungarian media, in which Telex, among others, was classified as pro-war. (As for Russian propaganda in Hungary's media, they didn't manage to find much, although we had even given them a hand in doing so.) A few days later, Gergely Gulyás announced that the government had adopted an anti-war action plan, as part of which the funding of certain media outlets would be investigated.

Shortly afterwards, a new media analysis report was published.

An international disinformation campaign

The report on the Chinese vaccine is the second part of the series "Disinformation Narratives in Hungary", the first regarding the aforementioned pro-war narrative. The report, published on July 15th, is titled, "The presence of the anti-Chinese-vaccine narrative in Hungary, based on the disinformation operation revealed by Reuters."

It refers to a Reuters article published on June 14th, which reported that, according to the news agency's investigation, the US military had launched a covert campaign in the Philippines during the height of the coronavirus pandemic to undermine confidence in the Chinese Sinovac vaccine (i.e. not the Sinopharm vaccine used in Hungary). This was both in retaliation for China's attempts to blame the United States for the outbreak and to counter growing Chinese geopolitical pressure in the region. To this end, fake profiles were used to spread false information about the Chinese vaccine on social media. Later, similar actions were carried out in several other Asian countries. The health experts interviewed were unanimous in their condemnation of the campaign and considered it irresponsible.

Incidentally, the SPO failed to include in its report a link to the Reuters investigation, which served as the basis for the entire analysis. There is a reference in the presentation of the Reuters article, but it is a 2021 news story about the death of a participant in a Sinopharm vaccine clinical trial in Peru from pneumonia due to Covid-19 (it's worth noting that the person was a member of the control group in the trial and received a placebo, not the vaccine). The irony is that, according to the SPO's logic, even this Reuters article could be considered disinformation.

The Reuters investigation was also covered in detail on Telex, and we had previously also written extensively about the dangers of global vaccine diplomacy games.

"The anti-Chinese-vaccine narrative"

The SPO report starts off by mischaracterizing the investigation, as it says: "The Sovereignty Protection Office investigated whether during the pandemic Hungary experienced any coordinated disinformation narratives similar to or following the pattern of campaigns in Asia and the Middle East." However, the campaign uncovered in the Reuters investigation was run on social media, with pseudo-profiles created for the purpose spreading verifiably false information with the deliberate aim of deception. In Hungary, the SPO did not investigate social media at all (although it had reason to), but rather only media outlets critical of the government, and in the vast majority of articles classified as disinformation, it did not even try to point out falsehoods.

Nevertheless, it did not have any trouble drawing a conclusion: “On the basis of its inquiry, the Sovereignty Protection Office concluded that disinformation narratives following the pattern identified by Reuters, capable of influencing public opinion, portraying Chinese vaccines as dangerous and unreliable were present in both the domestic media and Hungarian politics.”

But just what are these "disinformation narratives"?

The report says in broad terms: "One form of disinformation in the media was that doctors and health experts who supported the use of the Chinese vaccine were hardly given a voice in the Hungarian press, in contrast to those who emphasized its potential risks. Another form of disinformation was that the effectiveness of vaccines was often presented through manipulative statistics." However, it does not specify which manipulative statistics it is referring to.

Half of the 26-page SPO report, is a collection of links to articles that the agency considers part of "the anti-Chinese-vaccine narrative". It lists nearly 200 articles from ten different media outlets. Interestingly enough, alongside the dozens of articles from newspapers often considered "opposition" was an article from the Mandiner, but this was perhaps an accident because even from this seemingly arbitrary selection it stands out entirely. At the end of the report there is a section called Methodology, which does not reveal anything about the methodology or even the basis on which the articles were selected.

"Based on the research conducted during the analysis, it can also be concluded that on the political side, the Demokratikus Koalíció, and on the media side, primarily but not exclusively 24.hu and RTL Klub were the most active players in the disinformation campaign." The only page of the report that contains any specifics also gives a few examples from these two outlets, but it does not explain how they would constitute disinformation (i.e. the deliberate, conscious dissemination of false information for some kind of gain).

We also looked more closely at the list of Telex articles included in the report. It was quite enlightening.

Throughout the entire report, the only mention of Telex appears in the appendix listing the articles, so it is not clear what problem SPO had with any of our articles or which of the claims contained therein it considers untrue and why. Moreover, two of the 17 articles included are listed twice.

Of the 15 reports labeled as disinformation, several are simple news articles, briefly reporting on something that was considered important at the time, and one can only speculate as to what the SPO has against them. In the articles listed, we reported on the following events:

• The political party DK started a petition against the Chinese vaccine – which indeed took place;
• The Czech health minister was dismissed after refusing to authorize the Chinese and Russian vaccines – which indeed happened as well;
• A study from Budapest was released that showed that a quarter of the people over 60 who received the Chinese vaccine did not develop antibodies – which was indeed the study's conclusion;
• Statements made by Deputy Secretary General of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences and immunologist Anna Erdei, virologist Ernő Duda and Budapest Mayor Gergely Karácsony – who are renowned experts and important public figures;
• Another Chinese vaccine, whose use was never even considered in Hungary, was not successful in Thailand, Chile, or the Seychelles, and we reported on the results of a clinical trial.

Of the 15 contested articles, 5 were longer, more detailed analyses, which, as the Telex reporter most involved in the subject matter, I wrote:

• the first analysis promptly refutes an expert concern about the Chinese vaccine being bought by the government, dispels a few more misconceptions, and notes that it is the lack of data that is more problematic;
• another is about how experts believe the effectiveness of the Chinese vaccine should be tested – the expert who raised this point said it was precisely to dispel doubts and restore confidence;
• finally, three articles report that, based on concrete data and test results, the Chinese vaccine in Hungary has proved to be less effective than others: this is according to a government chart on vaccines, an antibody study by Hungarian researchers, and a study that looked at the effectiveness of vaccines used in Hungary based on vaccination and morbidity data.

What these articles have in common is that they were written with the help of respected scientists, and not a single claim has ever been refuted by the government or anyone else for that matter. Then one day the Sovereignty Protection Office declared them to be disinformation.

It is particularly ironic that the last article presents the results of a study that had received funding from the government, and among the authors are Cecília Müller, Hungary's Chief Medical Officer, and Miklós Kásler, the then Minister of Human Resources. This study reached the unequivocal conclusion that the Sinopharm vaccine lagged behind the rest of the vaccines available in Hungary in all material respects.

Thus, in its zeal, the Sovereignty Protection Office has effectively classified a study with government involvement as part of a disinformation campaign. The same is true for two of the news items listed above, which Telex had in fact picked up from the state news agency, the Hungarian Telegraphic Office.

Of course, the agency could have singled out many of our other articles as well, but as the methodology was not described, it is not known how and on what basis it made its selection. It's understandable that our article "The more reliable Chinese vaccine is coming to Hungary" did not fit the concept, but if nothing else, we did write about the topic in November 2020, when the idea of purchasing Chinese vaccines was still fresh. It could have easily included the article "Vaccine efficacy figures published by the government are problematic from a scientific point of view". But there is one trap that the agency managed to avoid, as it did not include the article "Our vaccination advantage evaporated – was the use of vaccines from the East worth it?", which, despite its title suggesting a high potential for disinformation, concludes that "The procurement and use of vaccines from the East is rightly criticized to this day, but despite appearances, this is not incompatible with the fact that their use in the spring was epidemiologically beneficial."

Curiously, one of the most widely read domestic newspapers, Origo, is not included in the SPO report at all – which is not surprising, of course, as it would be difficult to accuse the paper of being critical of government measures. What is interesting, however, is that almost two weeks prior to the agency's report, Origo too had the idea to use the Reuters investigative article to report on how the media critical of the government in Hungary "waged an anti-vaccination campaign". The difference is that they pointed the finger at 444 and Telex, and that they were even more explicit in their accusation that the articles in question were, in their view, commissioned by foreign entities. The ten Telex articles they listed are all included in the SPO's list of 15.

While it is obviously possible for inaccurate or even sensationalist claims to appear in the media, it is irresponsible to portray such claims as an organized disinformation campaign without any evidence. Especially when they are lumped together with articles that are legitimate criticisms, which are simply guilty of having content that the government doesn't like because it is not good for the construction of their current narrative. It is not the media's job to operate with the government's narrative-weaving in mind, but, among other things, to try to verify and contextualize the government's claims and actions. By listing a bunch of articles with virtually no explanation and declaring that a disinformation campaign has taken place, the SPO is dragging back issues into the political arena that the media had tried to draw out during the pandemic by talking to experts and analyzing data. Not only does this damage the quality of public discourse, it also erodes trust in the media.

Before running this story, we asked the SPO what the problem was with the listed articles. We will provide an update if we receive a substantive response.

Misrepresentations used against disinformation

In addition to conflating criticism of the government with disinformation, the SPO further undermines the media's credibility and constructs its own disinformation narrative with a number of additional misrepresentations. Here's a look at the most striking instances.

The timing:

The only indication that the articles and media outlets listed in the report had anything to do with the campaign revealed by Reuters is that their timing coincided: "The most intense phase of the counter-campaign took place during the disinformation operation, which was also revealed by Reuters, in the first three months of 2021. Then, after the WHO approved the emergency use of the Sinopharm vaccine in early May and did not restrict it to people over 60, pressure from politicians eased considerably."

What they neglected to mention is that the debate about the domestic use of the Chinese vaccine was logically at its most intense during this period because it was the time when it was purchased and licensed. Although the idea of the government buying Chinese vaccines was suggested as early as late October 2020 (so it was only natural for Telex to be interested in what the experts thought about this plan at that time), the agreement was only announced on January 14th and then approved by decree on January 28th. The first shipment arrived on February 16th and started to be delivered to family doctors on February 23rd.

That particular WHO approval:

The World Health Organization did indeed issue its approval in early May 2021 and it was for all ages, but what the SPO left out of the picture was that the WHO also indicated that there was no strong evidence of the vaccine's effectiveness in people over 60, and therefore recommended that countries using it monitor its effectiveness. It was only at the end of May that the results of the phase 3 clinical trials were finally published. It confirmed that the Sinopharm vaccine is effective and safe based on the trials, but when it came to people over 60 – as well as women and the chronically ill – there was little trial data. And it was this very group that received most of this vaccine in Hungary. Although it wasn't widely publicized, more than a year later, this monitoring found that the professional criticisms were justified all along.

Obtaining safe vaccines:

There is another misleading statement regarding the WHO approval: "The investigation was also justified by Hungary's pandemic response strategy, since the Hungarian government decided in 2020 that, despite the interests of the superpowers and the lobbying and coercive attempts of the pharmaceutical companies, it would try to obtain all vaccines deemed safe by the World Health Organization (WHO) in order to vaccinate the population as quickly as possible."

As noted above, the government had actually decided to purchase the Chinese vaccine and start using it long before it was approved by the WHO. Moreover, it was mainly given to groups for which the WHO had expressed reservations about the use of the Chinese vaccine.

Others have also pursued different paths:

"In recognition of the EU's slow progress in the joint procurement of vaccines, several Member States have sought to obtain Russian and Chinese vaccines through different means so that the vaccination program for the general public would not be delayed while Western manufacturers met demand," the SPO claimed. In contrast, according to official figures, the only country in the EU that procured Chinese vaccines was Hungary (and as for the Russian vaccine, apart from Hungary, only Slovakia obtained it, and only a small amount). It is worth observing, however, how the supposedly independent SPO echoes the government narrative about EU countries queuing up for Chinese vaccines.

The cheaper vaccine:

The SPO report lists some elements of disinformation that it considers to be common, one of which relates to the price of the vaccine: "These claims were regularly supplemented by the assertion that Chinese vaccine contracts always involve backroom deals that guarantee that China gets a good deal, even if it appears to sell its vaccines cheaper than Western manufacturers." Something worth noting in this respect is that it is well known that Sinopharm's vaccine was more expensive for Hungary than any other vaccine at the time, even after the latest price increase, including the Russian Sputnik V, which according to domestic studies was performing much better. Only the Moderna vaccines purchased last December proved to be more expensive, but their purchase was odd in more ways than one.

What threats to sovereignty did the agency fail to investigate?

"The misinformative, narrative-building messages quoted and identified from political actors and media outlets in our analysis were capable of influencing public opinion. The success of the anti-Chinese-vaccine narrative is also confirmed by public opinion polls, which reflect that distrust of Chinese-developed vaccines was already strongly present in Hungarian society before they were marketed, without any personal or medical evidence to back it up," the SPO report reads.

The agency therefore takes it for granted that the distrust of the Chinese vaccine stems from the media coverage of the medical concerns raised about the vaccine (plus statements made by opposition politicians), excluding the possibility that the concerns themselves may have contributed to this distrust. To this end, the SPO conflates the exercise of the media's basic informative function (i.e. to report on criticism as well) with the deliberate dissemination of fake news through disinformation campaigns. This is exactly the kind of approach that can be used to harm media companies even without conducting concrete investigations against them.

"It can be shown that in Hungary, both well-known politicians and the most widely read media outlets gave space to the anti-vaccination narrative attacking the Chinese vaccine, which was capable of undermining confidence in international vaccine procurement and epidemic control, as well as the effectiveness of the vaccination strategy, and could also be used to obtain direct political influence,"

– reads the report.

However, the Sovereignty Protection Office does not discuss the impact the following might have had on the country's sovereignty or confidence in its pandemic response:

• The government's procurement of Chinese (and Russian) vaccines through obscure and opaque contracts with suspicious companies;
• By means of regulatory maneuvers and circumvention of the pharmaceutical authorities, the government authorized them without taking into account expert opinions;
• It went on to vaccinate the elderly population with said vaccines, which had not been tested on this part of the population;
• It monitored the vaccine's effectiveness with vague, murky, and politicized studies;
• Ultimately it was revealed that the technical authorization process was riddled with discrepancies.

Neither did the SPO report examine whether the government's own communication attacks on the EU vaccine procurement program were "likely to undermine the effectiveness of the vaccination strategy". It also failed to mention whether the lack of transparency and data in the government's handling of the pandemic may have had something to do with the low level of public confidence therein.