In a recent conversation with CNA, Armela Krasniqi, the Director of the Audio-visual Media Authority (AMA), offered a clear and thoughtful look at how Albania is confronting the growing challenge of disinformation in the audiovisual space. Her remarks came at a time when public trust in media is being tested by viral falsehoods, foreign interference, and the sheer speed of online information. For many citizens, it can feel impossible to know what is real and what is deliberately distorted. Krasniqi’s message, however, was not one of alarm but of structured, careful response. She explained that when content falls under AMA’s mandate, the institution does not rush to judgment. Instead, the Appeals Council carefully reviews the audiovisual material in question, listens to the claims made by all parties involved, and only then makes a decision based on the specific facts of each case. This approach reflects a deep respect for due process and for the principle that media regulation must be fair, measured, and grounded in evidence. In an age when snap judgments and outrage often dominate, Krasniqi’s description of a deliberate, evidence-based review process is a reminder that protecting media integrity is not about silencing voices, but about ensuring that the rules of honest communication are respected.
The Director went on to explain the range of possible outcomes once the Appeals Council completes its review. Depending on the findings, the response might involve drawing the broadcaster’s attention to a problem, raising awareness about a particular issue, issuing a formal recommendation, or, when the legal conditions are clearly met, imposing a financial sanction. This graduated approach is important because it acknowledges that not every violation is the same. Some mistakes are simple oversights, which can be corrected through guidance and advice. Others are more serious and may require stronger measures to deter future misconduct. Krasniqi also noted that a hearing may be held during the review, giving all sides a chance to present their perspective in a structured setting. This makes the process more transparent and more human. It is not a faceless bureaucracy issuing edicts from on high, but rather a system that invites dialogue and allows for context. For a viewer watching from home, this might sound technical, but its significance is enormous: it means that when a complaint is made, it is not thrown into a void. It is examined by people who take their responsibility seriously, and who understand that behind every article, broadcast, or video there are both creators and audiences whose rights and interests need to be balanced.
At the same time, Krasniqi was careful to define the boundaries of AMA’s authority. She emphasized that claims related only to competition between entities—such as business disputes between companies seeking to gain market advantage—are not handled by AMA, unless there is also a clear violation of audiovisual legislation. This distinction is crucial because it prevents the regulatory body from becoming an all-purpose referee for quarrels that belong elsewhere. It also protects the integrity of AMA’s mission by keeping its focus on matters of public interest, such as content standards, protection of audiences, and truthful broadcasting. By drawing this line, Krasniqi reassures us that AMA is not trying to expand its power beyond what the law allows. Instead, it is a specialized institution with a specific role, and it operates best when it stays within its lane. This clarity also helps citizens and businesses alike, because it gives them realistic expectations about what can be accomplished by filing a complaint. If the issue is truly about anti-competitive behavior, there are other bodies and other legal paths to follow. But if the issue involves the spread of disinformation through audiovisual media, AMA is ready to act within its legal framework.
In addition to handling complaints, AMA also invests in media education activities. Krasniqi explained that these initiatives are designed to encourage people to verify information before accepting it, and to become more familiar with how the complaint mechanism actually works. This is a particularly refreshing point, because it shifts some of the responsibility onto the public as well as the media. Institutions alone cannot solve the disinformation crisis; citizens also need the skills to question, check, and critically evaluate what they see and hear. The idea, as Krasniqi described it, is to create a more informed audience that is harder to manipulate. She also touched on an interesting phenomenon: the increase in the number of complaints received by AMA. Rather than simply interpreting this as a sign that disinformation is growing, she suggested that it may also reflect greater awareness of the complaint mechanism. People are learning that there is a place to turn to, a process to follow, and a possibility of action being taken. But she wisely cautioned that this data alone is not enough to determine the cause of the increase. It could be that more people are paying attention, or it could be that more misleading content is being produced. Without deeper analysis, it is impossible to say for sure. This measured, honest assessment is exactly the kind of nuance we need in public discourse, especially in an era where numbers are often used to justify sweeping conclusions.
Turning to the broader legal and strategic context, Krasniqi addressed the question of whether there is a need for new laws or amendments. She explained that the issue of disinformation is already addressed in the National Strategy against Foreign Intervention and Disinformation 2025–2030, which was approved by Law No. 47/2025. AMA has contributed to this framework, and it has been assigned tasks related to media education and public awareness, among other responsibilities. The goal, in her words, is to help citizens recognize the ways in which disinformation is spread, verify sources, and develop critical thinking. Ultimately, these efforts are aimed at strengthening the public’s resilience to information manipulation. This strategic approach is particularly important because it recognizes that disinformation is not just a national issue; it is often part of foreign interference campaigns designed to destabilize societies, sow confusion, and weaken democratic trust. By embedding AMA’s work within a national strategy, the authorities are signaling that they take this threat seriously and that they understand the need for a coordinated, multi-layered response. The inclusion of media literacy as a core pillar is especially encouraging, because it moves away from top-down censorship and toward empowering individuals to make their own informed choices.
In the end, Krasniqi’s comments paint a picture of an institution that is thoughtful, restrained, and deeply committed to its public mission. She does not promise quick fixes or dramatic crackdowns. Instead, she offers something perhaps more valuable: a steady, rule-based process that respects the rights of broadcasters while protecting audiences from harmful content. At the same time, she acknowledges the limits of what any single authority can do. Disinformation is a complex phenomenon that requires not only regulation but also education, awareness, and active citizenship. The strengthened resilience she speaks of is not something that can be built overnight, but it is something that can be fostered by institutions like AMA working together with schools, civil society, journalists, and the public. Her human touch is evident in the way she speaks about awareness and critical thinking, reminding us that the fight against disinformation is ultimately about people. It is about helping everyday citizens navigate a noisy and often confusing media landscape without losing trust in one another or in the institutions that serve them. As Albania moves forward with its national strategy, the words of Armela Krasniqi offer a meaningful insight into the values that guide the response: fairness, education, transparency, and a genuine belief that an informed public is the best defense against manipulation.