The last chapter of the Spanda Cycle investigates the level of freedom of press and information of different contemporary societies. Published on the 28th of January 2015, a few days after the terroristic attack at Charlie Hebdo media-outlet.
—
The need for a fifth estate
Journalism is a highly important force in government, integral to democracy itself. By spreading facts and opinions of public concern, the communication machine is the vital bridge between citizens and institutions, and a distinctive participant in the political, economic, social and cultural dynamics of society at large. Democracy, in its DNA, requires informed people.
In 1837, in his dissertation on the French Revolution, the Scottish philosopher Thomas Carlyle saw the growth of the press in the industrial era as a fundamental tool of revolution against tyranny: “A Fourth Estate, of Able Editors, springs up, increases and multiplies; irrepressible, incalculable.” Mass-communication was born and, in his writings, Carlyle shared bright explanations on the need of ‘neutral’ platforms of information as a pillar for a sound relation between authorities and constituents. Almost two hundred years later, his vocabulary has lost very little of its appeal.
The spread of the internet and the diffusion of technological innovations has had an intense impact on many revolutionary movements all over the globe. From the soil of the digital era sprung an ever-increasing population of writers that are continuously reinforcing pluralism and activism at ‘irrepressible, incalculable’ speeds. The disruptive information-power of online platforms is spoken of with zeal and mirrored in contemporary academic productions calling for a Fifth Estate that creates another forum for debate; one more inclusive and fairer in its representations of perspectives.
More than mere means of reinforcing freedom of expression, social networks provide an escape-line from mainstream media coverage. Political and economic interests weaken Carlyle’s aspirations for a Fourth Estate as long as the masses have not found or turned towards strong nonpartisan sources of information. Messages posted on Facebook have triggered events that have become the ink on the new pages of histories of countries such as Tunisia and Ukraine; an unprecedented introduction into an equally unprecedented standoff between old and new, industrial and digital media.
It is naive to suppose that mainstream mass media give equal, or even proportional, representation to all opinions, but the internet has shown how misinformation is willingly and knowingly broadcast. Due to their role, big media-corporations face political and financial constraints that reflect in their information-gathering procedures made to fabricate conceptually-oriented material that, roughly, reflects the conjoined interest of those groups that allocate resources in society. Many giants of the global communication sector have a particular view of their role and, in many cases, are owned and operated by people imposing their philosophies onto their employees without any form of restraint.
It follows that mainstream media are not neutral conveyors of information. The deregulatory policies allowing government to commercially exploit media have contributed to a market-driven condition wherein progressively fewer individuals and or organizations control an increasing share of the mass media industry. Convergence in terms of ownership has created large conglomerates of dominating media that avoid any information considered to be harmful to their own interests, whether it be newsworthy or not. By merging live-news with entertainment, sensationalism rules the waves at the expense of tough coverage of serious issues; a form of consumerism that keeps the neo-cortex at rest.
Noam Chomsky, Ben Bagdikian, and Edward S. Herman, among others, have expressed the ownership-convergence in terms of media imperialism, the standardisation of culture and the reduction of information diversity. The ultimate consequence, critics argue, is a poorly informed public, thus a failure of democratic ideals. Aristotle, (in)famous for his rejection of direct democracy as theory and practice struck a chord: when one is sick, one goes to see a doctor – i.e., an expert – but how does one go about seeing an expert in politics? One cannot legitimately distinguish between expert and layman. “One person one vote” is both democracy’s proud claim, as well as its Achilles heel, because being an informed voter depends on a continuously upheld interest in politics. The subsequent analysis of what is at stake determines the effectiveness of democracy as a system in the interest of society. Freedom is fostered only when the means of communication are dispersed, decentralized, and readily available.
—
New media hell
The forms information takes and their impact on the audience have drastically evolved over the last ten to twenty years. The emergence and proliferation of new means of communication have changed the rules of the game for media-coverage and strongly reduced the communicative gap between big media corporations and each and every internet-user. Social networks have increased their relevance in the information field through a process of symmetric growth of the people accessing the digital platforms and, since their rise, have contributed in strengthening pluralism and freedom of expression.
At the same time, the online information boom has assigned a voice – even voices, owing to the many platforms – to every individual with internet access, which turned the digital landscape into a fray of pseudo-truths and subjectivity; all individuals spreading news are seeking to assert and feed their own interests. Through online blogging web-users have the impression of fulfilling a social functions, being both a source of information and a reference to others. However, in the long sequence of ‘tweet & share’, each and every digital personalization does to a story what the oral tradition did of old: it alters reality. Ever so slightly it alters, until even digital history becomes intractable and untraceable, and fact & fiction proudly march hand in hand.
The amplification of digital life has strongly incentivised the circulation of unconfirmed news reflecting public expectations through wishful thinking or fear, regardless of rationality. As a societal phenomenon par excellence, rumours have always been at the heart of the human daily behaviour, inspired by preconceived cultural, political and historical notions. Rumours are the oldest media in the world, forever present in human relations in all societies. Now that the average web-user can manipulate information and extend it beyond immediate circles, rumours have acquired a new global relevance and power, and have come to play an increasing role in maintaining balance in society.
In just a few seconds, rumours can destroy reputations, credibility and lives; some develop out of misunderstandings and quickly take on a life of their own. During Barack Obama’s first presidential campaign, his adversaries regularly cast doubt upon his birth in the US to weaken him politically. In Syria, since March 2011, the fabrication and the dissemination of rumours has become state policy. The official media, owned by the Assad family, claimed that the filming of opposition demonstrations were in reality shot in movie studios in Qatar, while, to tighten their grip on public opinion, the Syrian Electronic Army was continuously scanning the web for online media profiles hostile to the regime, which were then hacked and used to spread fabricated news. This misinformation-war’s purpose was to sow confusion and to lift legends and conspiracy theories to level ground with simple and obvious explanations.
While the internet is the main cause for an increasingly quick dissemination of rumours, simultaneously it allows for their rapid switch. What information consumes is the attention of the interpreters and, in these days, the world is suffering from a communication-overload. Decision makers have limited cognitive processing capacity and, when infoxicated by fragmented and biased communication, the quality of their decisions and policies suffers. In order to rise above the sensationalism-driven news trend, a deeper understanding of the fundamental changes in the relation between speakers and audience turns out to be necessary. If the hyper-connectivity has generated a condition where fact and myth can no longer be held apart, it is also because the veracity or falsity of a news story is no longer the exclusive domain of the mainstream media. Conscious and consistent citizen journalism will grow when the responsibility to verify and crosscheck sources will be endorsed by each and every digital voice. After all, ideals never die.
—
Pauvre Charlie
At its core, the media dependency theory states that the more a person depends on media to meet needs, the higher the importance the media will have in a person’s life and, therefore, the strongest the media will impact on that person. Now that we are witnessing an explosion of media-dependency, the theory can be better applied and assessed for what it would not possibly have earlier been foreseen: a situation wherein the need for objective, fact-checked data has become urgent due to the excessive supply and easy access to information.
The information market leaves little room for truly independent media, for there are no funds to invest in communication not politically or business orientated. A constant economic censorship impoverishes and marginalises both small and non-partisan media-outlets. It disregards potential innovative analysis and original angles of inquiry because there is no market for them at sight, nor big financial returns to justify investment. Moreover, the private sector routinely defeats investigative journalism: to a freelance reporter, being accused of defamation by a fat corporation means exorbitant legal-expenses and exhausting juridical procedures, an efficient mechanism deviously instilling a semi-conscious self-censorship in the writer.
In a world where infographic and data-journalism are the new resources to handle nearly any issue, data does not come cheap and, consequently, the lion-share of this media segment is doomed to be exploited by large conglomerates. The call for an approach similar to open-commons could hardly be more pronounced: even universities – whether or not publicly funded – are eager to protect their knowledge. Many are the players involved in the creation of knowledge and of know-how profit, yet copyright blatantly hampers access to information that could play an important role in public advancement. The claim that without copyright there will be no investment is dubious, more certainly is that without copyright, the returns of investment will be more equitably spread among all stakeholders.
Lastly, amid the subtler tools restricting specific information flows, the ‘war on terror’ is exploitative beyond all others. In times when security issues are ominous and ubiquitous, governments driven by a control disorder syndrome, are quick to consider independent media as threats to national security. Dozens of journalists have been jailed under such sketchy circumstances in Turkey, one of the world’s unwelcome places for nonaligned spirits. In many countries freedom of information is bordered by state intelligence monitoring (suspected) activities, while human rights are sacrificed on the shrine of Security. Examples abound: In 2014 both Morocco and Israel issued anti-terrorism directives that increased their governments’ abilities to prosecute outspoken reporters. Sensitive information inspires upstream politics into mind and pen, a phenomenon that despotic governments seek to avoid at all costs.
The recent Paris massacre perpetuated by two French-Algerian brothers against the satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo has caused a global outrage in defence of freedom of speech and expression. But it has also given further momentum to infoxication or, in other words, to the exploitation of public sentiment, here plainly translated as Islamophobia. On Sunday, January 11th, among the world leaders attending the demonstration of solidarity, there were Turkish Prime minister Davutoğlu, Ukrainian Prime minister Poroshenko, Egyptian Foreign minister Shoukry, Russian Foreign minister Lavrov, Algerian Foreign minister Lamamra, Bahrain prince Al Khalifa, and Gabonese President Ali Bongo – all representatives of countries where undesirable information sources are routinely squashed. The great march of political hypocrisy is summed up in the most impressive panoramic selfie shot in a empty and guarded street and depicting the ‘secure’ social isolation of the dignitaries from the rest of the civilian masses. The picture perfectly locates the space democracy needs to fill in order to work properly: the gap between citizens and institutions, between a bottom up and a top down approach to society. In this scenario, what really matters is that not even one single medium highlighted the actual chasm: the parade was presented globally on all mainstream media outlets as if for real the politicians were conducting the cortège.
Whatever is conveyed through information, its consumers must seek understanding in questioning the media. If we do not question, we cannot learn, and without recognizing that questioning is an art that ought to be mastered by writers and readers alike, critical thinking will remain a fruitless, individual endeavour, locked-up in a neglected ideal language suitable only for unlikely better times.
th4wrat 