NEW MANIPULATION AND SPIN FROM UNITED GROUP’S PLAYBOOK: Commissioned BFMI Report on Media to Be Presented as an Objective Assessment
Listen to the News
Dragan Šolak and his United Group appear to be launching a new campaign aimed at discrediting rival media outlets. Tomorrow, the Balkan Free Media Initiative (BFMI), an organisation claiming independence but in reality closely linked to United Group, will present its latest report on the media landscape in Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Bulgaria, Greece, and Slovenia. The event will take place in Room A5F385 within the European Parliament building, with Bulgarian MEP Andrey Kovačev, whose actions in certain situations worked in favor of the United Group, facilitating its placement in Brussels..
At first glance, the event is crafted to appear as an opportunity for an impartial analysis of the media landscape in these countries. Coincidentally or not, Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Bulgaria, Greece, and Slovenia are precisely the countries where United Group operates and faces intense competition. Claims that the BFMI report is far from an independent and objective assessment of the media landscape, serving instead solely to protect United Group’s business interests, are supported by the previous schemes, based precisely on a BFMI report.
United Group’s frustration over losing its monopoly on promoting European values is a key motive behind its attacks on Wireless Media Group (WMG). WMG has taken the lead in promoting European integration, providing robust media support for Serbia’s EU accession path, and strengthening cooperation with European organisations.
United Group activated its tried-and-tested mechanism to eliminate competitors, focusing then on discrediting them through commissioned research. For this purpose, Šolak’s mechanism had been expanded, with BFMI and lobbyists from the powerful Highgate company—already reported on by Kurir as a hired ally of Šolak—spearheading the actions. It so happened that one major slip-up revealed all the previously invisible connections behind the scheme.
Specifically, United Group media presented a piece on WMG as an investigative article from the International Press Institute (IPI). Initially, the article on IPI’s website was attributed to a British individual, Jan-Peter Westad. Shortly afterwards, the "author" was replaced by BFMI as the credited entity. The most intriguing aspect of this fiasco is that the originally credited Briton worked for Highgate, the lobbying firm used by Šolak, and is now employed by the UK government. Interestingly, while at Highgate, Westad conducted an interview with BFMI director Antoinette Nikolova, who also works for Nova, Šolak’s media outlet in Bulgaria.
This is just one of many examples highlighting the connection between United Group and certain actors who publicly present themselves as independent researchers, commentators, analysts, journalists, or consultants. Some of these individuals will sit tomorrow in Room A5F385 of the European Parliament building to discuss a report expected to be as biased as previous ones, tailored to serve the interests of United Group..
Dragan Šolak’s mechanism for sidelining competitors and ensuring unchecked growth of his wealth is structurally highly intricate, relying on key pillars such as lobbying firms like Highgate, NGOs such as BFMI and his media outlets—most prominently N1, Nova, and Danas. The mechanism also incorporates advertising agencies operating beyond Serbia’s borders and cable operators across the region.
Given the connections between certain actors and organisations with United Group, serious questions arise about whether the reports, articles, and analyses produced by such entities can be regarded as objective, independent, and credible in assessing the media or any other situation. Concerns about tomorrow’s presentation of BFMI’s new report and the accompanying panel discussion being driven by a specific interest group’s agenda are more than justified when the facts are laid bare. A panel discussion featuring speakers tied to a single media organisation, without representation from the broader Serbian media market, cannot be anything but biased and one-sided. It is not difficult to discern whose interests this approach is designed to serve.
Coming Up in the Next Instalment: How Dragan Šolak Falsely Accused Competitors and Tried to Monetise Anti-Russian Sentiment
